The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-01-24
ASKS FOR
A NEW TRIAL.
The Town of Bristol Files
a Petition.
IN THE NICHOLAS CASE.
Jury Awarded Mrs. Jane Nicholas
Verdict of $4,000.
SHE WAS INJURED ON HIGHWAY

The defendants petition for new trial
In the case of Jane Nicholas VS.. George
II. Peck, town treasurer Of the town Of
Bristol, was heard by the Appellate Court
today. A jury in the Common Pleas Di-
vision of the Supreme Court In Bristol
county, on September 81. 1884, gave the
plaintiff verdict for $1,000 for injuries
received by reason of defective sidewalk
In the town OF Bristol. The defendants S
counsel, Orrin l.. Bosworth and w. X.
Tillinghast. at the trial of the case be-
fore jury, took exceptions TO the rulings
of the court. and,a new trial is now asked
because the verdict was against the law
and the evidence.
In support Of the claim for new trial.
the defendants counsel depended on four
points. First, that the sidewalk where
tho plaintin claims shs fell was in
reasonably safe condition and reasonably
free from defects; second. that the town
diu net have any notice of any detects in
or upon the sidewalk at the place where
although she alleged in her declaration
that she was using due care, did not on
the trial OF ber case prove due care
fourth, that the plaintiffs own nsgli-
genoe was the cause of the accident
In support of the first point. it is
taken in the case, not even IN the testi-
moDv Of the plaintiff herself, was lucat.
ed any particular stone against which she
struck, though one OF her witnesses had
located n stone rear Csru's gate and no
one has testified the stones on tho high.
way were dangerous ones, and the stone.
as measured by A lsn Nj. Munro, was
found To be seven -eiehths of an inch.
The testimony is further held TO show in
support of the contention that the town
had no notice Of the defect in the high
way. that many of the witnesses In this
case who frequently passed this locality.
and over this particular spot where
plaintiff fell, some OF them three or four
times IA DAY, had nsver noticed the
stones
The counsel for the defendant urge In
regard Go their third point that the fact
that she was walking along rs carefully
as she always did, doss not prove that she
was walking as carefully as was her Gus
tom, and would not amount to prove uue
care while crossing place sho knew 10 be
defective and dangerous And finally the
defendant claims thar, Sin the lizht OF
ali authorities hFssd upon tho testimony
Cf the plaintiff herself, her previous
knowledge Of the stones or defects and OF
the shape Of the stones; knowledge that
If she caught her foot there shs would
srrely fall; her seeing the stones Just be-
fore she stepped upon them, knowing
some CT them TO be dangerous; oppor-
tunity to avoid the stones by passing them
farther out on the walk; OF stepping over
them, as she must often have done before,
since she had assed over the walk; and
oil this In the full monday light of a
bright dav brings the cases fully within
tie principle OF law necessary to establish
contributory negligence on the part of the
plaintiff.
Hunry W. Hayes in behalf Of the plain.
tiff. opposed tte petition for n new ttial
and argued THAI tho verdict was fully
sustained by tie evidence. and ttat there
was no contri butOry negligence on the
part OF Mrs Nicholas.