Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-01-03
S0asRsET COURT.
Decemb,r Terri, Sipfone Irdicia; cout al
stcwtc3 3ga--Iuige Wiswsi'. prasidins.
SkowHECAS, Jan.

Probably the heaviest case entered at the
December term of supreme judicial court
in Somerset county, is the suit of Rodney
Crosby, administrator ef the goods and
estate of Charles E. Crosby agains. the
Wa.erviile & Fairfield Railway and Light
Company. The suit is for the Injuries and
subsequent death Of Charles Z. Crosby on
July %, 1892. The people of Fairfield,
where the deceased lived, ana wlere lis
parents still reside. will rot sooa forget the
horror of tha. day when il was reported
that Charles Z. Crosby, or Ned, as he was
called hy his sctoolmates, bad been run
over By The cars and ktl!el.
He was freight brakeman on the Maine
Central, and was engaged in shifting at the
Fsi. field yard at the time of his dealh The
wires of the W. & +. Il ,ilYay and Light
Co pass directly over The track OF the
Maine Central Z. X. on Bridge street in
Fairfield yillage, aid on the day in question
The Electric Company was making some re-
pairs and one OF their wires was lowered
from its customary position.
Mr.. Cro.by was upon the roof of one of
the frs light cars III his work of braking and
was caught by tue suspended wire and
swept off and under ons Of The ears. The
Wheels passed over lin and mang,td his
body. D, spite his injuries, however, he
lived several hours, death finally relieving
him from It's sulfeTings.
The verdict OF the c0rcners jury i'm
panellad on that day found the facts sub
stan'ially as detailed above, hut Gil IT in
- h., h. 4,,,l
law Whether the fault lies with the Flee
tric Co, the NJ. C. Il. r., Or in the care
lsssness of the deceased, il would seem as
though it might be easily determined by an
investigation as the circumstances surround
ing the accident are NOT maoy or compli-
cat d.
Mr. Crosby was an only son and his death
was a sad blow to the family The dam
ages alleged in the wit are in the sum Of
$4,000.
william L. LanCey vs.. George A. and
Cyrus S. Noble, action to recover the
amount Of pronissery note given ny de-
feudaDt TO plailtif ia 1872 for the sum OF
$77. Plaintif Introduces note and styps
Defendants claim that in 1872 they pur-
chased some hay of pieintlf for which they
were to psy in Dir, ssieg valued at SO; that
they afterwards gave their note for the
same and in crest amounting TO 81, with
the same understanding in regard 10 The
dressing; that in 1875 the plaintiff received
from them an amount Of dressing sufci' n;
TO pay the note; that the defendants sew
erAl times asked plaintiff for the note. but
plaintiff replied tha. lie could not find the
note but that it was paid and was all right.
Plaintiff replies that there was no unGcr-
standing that the dressing was to be ap-
piled to the payment Of the note, but on the
contrary he held st that tims other notes
against the defendants and an account for
over 500, The note in suit was witnessed
by c. A FarwelI, but it appeared ly the
testimony of Cyrus S Noble that he signed
the note after i; was witns ed and not in
the presence of the witness. s. s. Hack
EFT, Esq, for plaintiff Abel Davis and s.
j. Walton, Esq for defendants.
In case Lancey against Noble, V, rdict for
defendants \ divorce was granted An
CELIA c. Smith from Chas. A. Smith for
desertion and non-support. Maria 3. Boyle
was denied Giyorce from John II. Boyle.