The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-09-24
CASE DISMISSED.
Only One Case on Trial In the Com
mon Pleas Division Today.

mon Pleas Division Today.
In the common pleas division of the
Supreme Court before Judge Wilbur,
was resumed today the trial OF the suit
OF Alonzo G. Gardiner against the New
York, New Haven a Hartford Railroad
Company for damages alleged TO have
been caused him by the negligence of the
defendant company at Hampton Meadow
crossing.
When the first witness was put upon
the stand. Civil Engineer Bowen, he was
claimed, showed the layout OF ground near
the crossing when the accident occurred,
for which damages are sued.
Mr.. Arnold, attorney for the defendant,
objected TO the introduction OF the plat,
because there was upon II the opinion OF
the engineer as to certain facts about the
crossing as viewed by him.
MIR. Williams, counsel for the plalntln,
got MIR. Arnold TO agree that the engineer
might use the plat 10 refresh his memory
and the court also agreed TO this, but
ruled that the plat should not go 10 the
jury in its present shape.
Mr.. Bowen then testified as TO measure
ments, width of tracks and the amount
of track that could be seen from the cross
ing at Hampton Meadows, claiming thar
a good view of the track could be had but
for q short distance.
Attorney Arnold cross examined this
and other witnesses very sharply
APPELLATE DIVISION.
In the case OF Margaret Il. Sullivan. ct
al, VS.. Johu III. Cronin, ct al, the foi-
lowing rsecript by Tillinghast j. was
filed today:
"Upop examination OF the papers in this
case It does not appear that any guardian
ad litem has been appointed to look after
the interest of the infant respondents
therein named. Ii would, therefore, ba
improper at this time to enter decree
appointing a receiver as prayed. The
case may stand continued TO the 18th inst.
in order that steps may be taken Tor the
appointment of snch guardian"
One Of the witnesses testified that the
gates were frozen.
William Harrington Gardner, the young
boy who was in charge OF his father g
milk team. and who, ii is claimed, was
injured Dy being thrown from the wagon
just before II and the horse were struck
by a locomotive of the defendant, told the
story of his trip on the morning OF the
accident.
In cross examination he claimed that
he did not tell the conductor OF the
train whose locomotive struck him that
his horse became frightened after the
crossing tender stopped him, and be
could not hold the animal. He admitted,
however that the horse had run on pre-
vious occasions when a train of cars was
near IL.
The plaintiff here rested their case.
Mr.. Arnold asked that the Gaze be
dismissed saying that nothing had been
introduced by the plaintiff to go TO the
jury on. That by the plaintiffs own ter'
timopy IL was proven that there were
gates at the crossing and also a cross
- lxsxx 4 "A
the train before the crossing tender warn
ed him, and II his father let a son of II
years old drive a full grown horse with
in 100 feet OF railroad crossing daily that
was not the railroad company's fault.
That the court I'm the Wilson case had
held that the warning by the crossing
tender was even better notice TO the pub
lie than the gates. In regard TO the latter
being up, Nr. Arnold admitted that the
gates were frozen, but that the railroad
company had done all 1t was bound to dc
legally or morally to protect passers over
the crossing. That il both parties were
guilty of negligence the plaintiff could not
recover.
MIR. Tower. one of the attorneys for the
plaintiff, said the testimony showed that
the team was almost on the track when
the fiagman gave notice of the coming o
the train. The boy had been in the habit
of crossing at this place and the gates be
ing up was an Invitation to cross its track
by the defendant company. The fiagman
should have been out long before he left
his shed 40 as to give warming to the
boy. That there was no negligence on
the part OF the father as II was the GUS
tom in the country for boys to drive milk
teams.
Judge Wilbur asked Mr.. Tower IL the
railroad company were obliged to warn
anyone 100 feet away from their crossing
of the approach of a train.
Mr.. Tower responded that he did not
suppose IL was but what he meant to say
was that the company must give rea-
sonable warning.
Judge Wilbur said the railroad company
had right TO presume the team was in
charge OF competent driver and there
was no question IL WAS the duty OF the
driver to watch for the approach OF q
train at any crossing ''What more, "
said his honor, "could the railroad COM
pany do than 4 has done in this case?
1t had provided hagman, who warned
the boy in charge of the team according
TO the latter's own testimony, when he was
20 feet away from the track, and ii Is also
shown that the boy heard the train,
stopped his horse, and was backing the
animal 10 turn IL around when the horse
became scared and ran into the track.
A railroad company must do every thing
1t can for the safety OF travellers over its
crossings, and 1t seems that in this case
1t had done everything required of 1t in
having the fagman give the warning to
the boy of the approach of the train. The
motion OF counsel for the defendant to