The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-05-18
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

The following decisions with rescripts
were sent down yesterday, in cases argued
before the Law Court:
ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY.
Emma F. Guild VS.. Lewiston and Auburn
Horse Railroad Company.
Rescript by Judge Fostor-Plaintiff re-
covered a verdict of $41.60 for services
rendered Nina L. Phoenix, injured in alight-
ing from defendants car. We are of the
opinion that the evidence in this case fully
sustains the verdict, and that the motion
for new trial should not be sustained.
Certainly the jury We're warranted in
coming to the conclusion that there was a
contract for employment between the plain
tiff and the company through its president.
Justice requires no revision of the conclu-
sion reached by the jury, and the entry
must be motion overruled; Judgment on the
verdict.
Nina L. Phoenix VS.. Lewiston and Auburn
Horse Railroad Company.
Rescript by Judge Foster-The plaintiff
recovered a verdict against the defendant
for damages sustained by reason of being
thrown to the ground while in the act of
alighting from defendants car.
The principal issue of fact was whether
the defendant started it's car after it had
come to stop in obedience to plaintiff
signal, and before she had fully alighted, or
whether she jumped from the while it
was in motion and before it was stopped.
We have examined the evidence with care,
and while the plaintiff is corroborated by
two witnesses, the evidence is SO overpower-
ingly in favor of the defence, we feel con-
WINGED that the verdict can not be sus-
tanned.
The plaintiffs evidence is contradicted
by the conductor who says he saw her sig
nal. and rang the bell for the car to stop; by
the driver who says he heard the bell and
was stopping the car. but that she fell be-
fore the car was stopped; and by three
passengers upon the car, at the time, and
by the admissions of the plaintiff made to
two other parties Immediately after the
accident, that she alighted before the car
was stopped, and that it was her fault, and
by two other passengers whose testimony
has been taken since the trial on the motion
to set aside the verdict on the ground of
newly discovered evidence.
These witnesse were in position to see
the plaintiff, and their evidence so strong
ly outweights the evidence for the plaintiff
that we are of the opinion that the jury
must have mistaken the facts of the case.
or have been SO prejudlced that they mis-
conclusions Motion sustained; verdict set
aside, new trial gtanted.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
John o. Elwen vs. Edward S. Hacker ct
al.
Rescript by Judge Foster-To maintain
an action against his employer for personal
injuries, the servant must establish some
neglect of duty on the part of the master
arising out of the relation between them,
which was the direct cause of the injury.
and which the master was bound to guard
against
Ordinarily the question of due care, and
of negligence, is one of fact for the jury.
But where the facts are undisputed, and
there is no evidence, or the evidence is too
slight or trifiing to be considered by the
jury, then it is the duty of the Court to Or
der a nonsuit.
A case must not necessarily be submitted
to the jury because there is a scintilla of
evidence, There must be evidence having
legal weight.
If evidence is to be offered showing that
the injury was received through the negli-
gence of the master in selecting or employ
ing Incompetent fellow servants, the
declaration must contain such averment,
otherwise the evidence is not admissible,
Exceptions overruled,
YORK COUNTY,
jerome f. Manning vs. Charles G. Perkins
Rescript, by Judge Foster-The action for
covenant broken can be maintained only
for. the recovery of damages for the breach
of covenant OF contract under seal.
In actions upon contract, the statute of
limitations begins to run from the time
when the cuse of action accrues, and that
is at the time of the breach of the contract
although no injury may result from the
breach until afterwards. Judgment for de-
PENDANT.