The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-12-19
COULD NOT AGREE
Jury in the Case Against the City,
Out Since Friday, Reported
a Disagreement
INJURIES ALLEGED FROM
A DEFECTIVE HIGHWAY
The Case of Mrs. Lamb For Dam
ages For Alleged Injuries BY
a Fall, Begun Yesterday

The superior court opened yesterday
morning, with Judge Charles U. Bell
of Lawrence presiding.
| The jury, which was out Friday, at
| the adjournment of the court on the
case of j. S. Bigelow vs. city of Wor-
cester, reported that they could not
agree upon verdict, and were there
upon dismissed by the court.
| The case involved an action for dam
ages in the sum of $4,000 for injuries
received by the plaintiff alleged to
have been caused by a defect of the
| highway on Shrewsbury street. The
plaintiff, according to the testimony
was driving into the city on a load of
hay and was tipped off at a certain
point on Shrewsbury street. This is
the second time that the case has been
| tried. Herbert Parker and c. C. Mil
ton appeared for the plaintiff, and City
Solicitor A. p. Rugg for the city.
The case of Frank S. Robbins VS.. Pat
rick ]. Murphy of Worcester, which
was to have had jury trial, was set
tied by agreement of counsel. A judg-
ment was entered for $1050 and costs
for the plaintiff. The action involved
an account alleged to BIZ due the plain
tiff for kiln dried flooring, sheathing,
etc. Wood & Wood appeared for the
plaintiff, and Sullivan & O'Connell,
John w. Corcoran and w. ]. Sullivan
of Boston for the defendant.
The next case for hearing was that
of Margaret Lamb VS.. city of Worces-
ter, in an action of tort, ad damnum
| $4,000. The accident which was alleged
to have happened to the plaintiff, was
| on a sidewalk on Front street, at
Nos. &c and 6S. The plaintiff claimed,
by reason of a defect in the sidewalk,
she was thrown and severely injured.
Her counsel, Thayer & Cobb, intro
duced number of witnesses who tes-
titled as to the condition of Mrs. Lamb,
! both before the alleged accident and
after. Several physicians testified as
expert witnesses as to her physical
condition. The defendant was repre-
| scented by City Solicitor A. P. Rugg,
who also introduced physicians as ex-
perts who testified as to having made
an examination of Mrs. Lamb, and that
her condition was due to Bright's dis
ease and other causes.
At about 4.3O the evidence of both
sides was all in, and the court in
structed the counsel to reserve their ar
guments until today at $50 o'clock.
The jury was then dismissed until this
morning.
Yesterday the jury was conducted to
view the place where the accident was
said to have occurred.
After the Lamb case was continued,
there was lRaring by the court on
the case of Charles B. Gates VS.. Moore
! Coombs Company. A. P. Rugg, who
appeared for the receiver and Commits
sioner A. c. Williams, opened the.case,
| briefly stating the present status of it.
In the first place, a bill in equity was
! heard, praying for a receiver of the
company, before Judge Hopkins, and
A. c. Williams appointed as such re-
ceiver. The business was conducted
for some time at a loss, and the re-
ceiver prayed the court for leave to
sell the property and divide among the
creditors. At a hearing before the
court the, receiver was authorized to
sell. The auction was duly advertised
in the papers, and the sale held
The Worcester Collateral Loan Com
pany filed its intervenor setting forth
that it held mortgage upon the pro-
perty of the Moore-Coombs Company
| for $4,000 with interest. 1t prayed tina.
out of the proceeds of the sale the
mortgage should be satisfied The re-
ceiver's sale showed net sum of
! $2596.
| The report, as read by Mr.. Rugg
was ordered accepted by the court and
then followed an argument of counsel
, as to the amount of money due the
Worcester Collateral Loan Company
Its attorney, H. L. Parker, cited au>
thorities to show that the loan COM
pany was entitled to the rate of inter
est charged in the mortgage up to the
time that the property was sold, while
| A. P. Rugg contended that the IS per
cent charged should not be allowed af-
ter the property Of the company came
into the hands of the court, as in in
solvency proceedings. The court took
the matter under advisement
Adjournment was then taken until
today