The Somerset reporter., 1894-01-04
Somerset :. j. Court.

Deputies in attendance: A p. Spear, r. T.
| Pennel, Simon Fox.
Blaine $ Viles Messenger,
TuestlaB. Jany. 2.-Probably the heav-
est case entered at the December term 81
supreme judicial court in Somerset
county, is the suit of Rodney Crosby, |
administrator of the goods and estate of
Charles +. Crosby against the Water
Vile 4 Fairfield Railway and Light |
compapy. The suit is for the injuries
and subsequent death of Charles +.
Crosby ON July %, 1892. The people of
Fairfield, where the deceased lived, and |
where his parents still reside, will not |
soon forget the horror of that day when
il was reported tina; Charles +. Crosby. |
OF Ned, aS he was called by his school |
mates. had been run over by the cars and |
killed.
lie vas freight brakeman on the
Maine Central. and was engaged in shift |
ing at the Fairfield yard at the time of
| his death. The wires of the w. Il f. |
Railway and Light Co. pass directly
over the track of the Maine Central k.
II. on bridge street in Fairfield village.
and on the day in question the Electric
Company was making some repairs and
|
customary position.
Mr.. Crosby was upon the roof of one
of the freight ears in his work of braking
and was caught by the suspended wire
and swept off and under one of the cars.
The wheels passed over him and niangl-
ed his body. Despite his injuries, how
ever, he lived several hours, death final
~ relieving him from his sufferingS.
The verdict of the coroner's jury i'm
panelled on that day found the facts sub
1 stanially as detailed above. but did not
i intimate any opinion rs to where the
!. fault'lay. Whether the fault lies with
the Electric Co, the NJ. {. X. r., or in
3 the careessness of the deceased, it would
& seem as though, it might be easily de-
ermined by an investigation AS the cir
I umstances surrounding the accident are
\ OF many or complicated.
II Mr.. Crosby was an only son and his
Heath was a sad blow to the family. The
-, lomages alleged in the writ are in the
Ism of $40 900.
William l.. Lancey vs.. George \. and
Crus 5. Noble, action to recover the
AMOUNT of promissory note given by
depndant to plaintiff in 1872 for the sum
$ Of 81. Plaintiff introduces note and
r stos.
e DEFENDANTS claim that in 1872 they
q purchased some hay of plaintiff for which
theywer to paw in dressing valued at
SIS; that they afterwards gave their
e noteor the same and interest amount
n ling.t ST.. with the same understanding
a in regard to the dressing, that in 1873
the ,laintiff received from them an
| r 81, At,,ia tn hn
|. |note:lhat the defendants several times
i asked plaintiff for the note, but plaintiff
j., replied that he could not find the note
: but tha it was paid and was all right.
u Plah III replies that there was no I'M
derst Ming that the dressing WAS to be
applied % the payment of the note, but
e on the contrary he held at that time
=, other npes against defendants and an
:, account or over 500. The note in suit
II was witnessed by e. \. Farwell, but il
= appearedbv the testimony of Cyrus ).
d Noble thu he signed the note after it
i was witnessed and not in the presence of
the yitnes. 5. :. Hackett, Esq, for
u pl,intiff; 4hel Davis and ). j. Walton,
Esq, for cfendants. Verdict for dcfen-
dants.
s \ divore was granted Angela G,
II Smith fromChas. 4. Smith for desertioI
e and non-sulpor.
It Maria B. Boyle was denied divorce
. from John Il. Boyle.
It WedneSaa Ian. = Lena Henrahan
- VS., John Dmnigan, action for damages
for assault an battery alleged to have
been committed upon the person of
plaintiff by tie defendant in the summer
/, of 1883.
t Defendant i overseer of the finishing
room at l.. Anderson Il Cos mill in
Skowhegan. and the plaintiff was work
i ing in that room at the time of the al
e legged assault.
: Plaintiff test6es that on the night of
= the tenth of July, she was going out of
the mill and observed defendant and one
Rosie Bolgcr upon the stairs. that on the
following morning, while she was at
} work in the mill, the defendant came to
d her aud accused her of making scandal
n Gus talk about i'm; that after some
+, further conversation, defendant ordered
= her to leave and hfore she had time to
e do so, he seized he by the shoulders and
II shook her and pushcd her out of the
). room, pushing aud crushing her to the
floor, inuring herspvercly; that she has
been unable to do any work or labor
since until quite recently.
Il Plaintiff testimony was corrohorated
by several witnesses who observed "A
p part or all of the Affair. Or, j. +. r.
Biron was called to attend plaintiff but
d did not attach great importance to her
: injuries AT the time
h On trial. Forrest Goodwin for Plf.
Merrill & Cover TOR hft.