Waterbury Democrat., 1901-03-29
BRENNAN AWARDED s5.000'
In Famous Case Against Berlin
 Iron Bridge Co.

Short Calendar Matters Disposed of A Batch of Divorces Were Granted to Unhappy Couples--Two Divorce Cases Went Over Until Next Week. In the superior court at short calen- dar, this forenoon, Judge Ihayer handed down judgment in the suit of William Brennan against the Berlin Iron Bridge company. Brennan sued for S1O,00O for loss of his right foot while in the defendants employ ill Un- ion City seven years ago. Judge Tnay- CTS judgment gives Brennan S3.OOO damages. An appeal will be taken to the supreme court
 The following is the courts finding in full
 William Brennan vs The Berlin Iron
 Bridge Co.
 Superior court. New Haven county, at
 Waterbury, March 29 1901.
 The defendants claim that the con- plain is insufficient must be overruled. The foreman's knowledge was the de- fendant's knowledge of the unsafe con- d1tlon of things. Tine allegation that the foreman had knowledge is the al- legation of the fact which the plain fiH would prove to show the defend ants knowledge. If defective it is because the allegation states the evi- dential instead of the ultimate fact and is argumentative pleading. If so it Is defective in form only. If the de- fendant desired 10 take advantage of it, it should have done so at an earlier stage It cannot now take advantage of such mere formal defect after default and after the case has been fully heard.
 The defendant has not sustained the burden, which is assumed by the de fault, of disproving the allegations of the complaint referred to in tue first four paragraphs of it's notice; and it has failed to prove cOntriDutorE negli- gence on the part of the plaintiff, or that the plaintiff s injuries were caused by the negligence of his fellow ser wants.
 It is unnecessary to comment on the facts. The defendant did not prove ill what manner the injury occurred, what occasioned the timber to fall.
 Assuming as NIr Jarvis. the defend ants president. does that the timber was in equilibrium so that a jar would cause it to fail it does not follow that the west faces of the timbers were not ill line and perpendicular. This was assumed by it's experts to be impossi- ble upon NIr JarvisS Supposition and it was claimed that the west face of the timber which fell must have been between five and six inches west of the west face of the timber below 1t. else the timber would Bot have fallen unless the plaintiff pulled it over. This by no means follows. The tim Der bill in evidence shows that there were four short ti,nberS varying from thirteen to seventeen feet ln l"hStl and Brown. the foreman. testiiic:' that .Ir..l llA Tor /,rtls % to 29 fet in length without regard 10 length At the time of the accident only one of these short sticks had been used in the trestle. If the long tim Der which fell was piled upon short one it might be in equilibrium as de- scribed by Mir Jarvis. although it's west face was in line with the west face or those below it and that line was per pendicular to the ground: for it would. and might. overlap the stick below lensthwise in such manner that 1t would just balance these and slight far or the placing of Dodge's hand upon it or his leaning against it would set it in motion, swing the end toward Brennan around in the manner III which it must have swung, the west end of the short stick serving as q pivot. and cause the stick to fall. UT ii might thus be set in motlon DE far communicated to it by the tlmDer which was being moved, or one of the barS or men coming in contact WltH the car stakes upon which the tlflpel was piled If the timber was thus piled it would appear to Brennan a' the point where he was set 10 "orh to be stable and safe. But 1t was TOT the defendant to show that it was not nao,igent as described in the com ,laint Ii was una.-e or failed tC show what caused the accident or tha' tbe lumber was not piled i'll the way above suggested or in other WaSS equally dangerous which might be suS pested. Having failed to prove it's lach of negligence or that the plalntlh "as naeligent the substantial damages proved by the plaintiff must pc awaru u ad to him. l assess those damages h' thrso thousand (S3.Oo0.OO dollars anf render judgment for the plalntlH t( rocover that sum with his costs.
 THAYER. Judge.
 7napment for foreclosure wa' ,wsrded the Dime Savings pam aoainst William II. Wright for S2,s9o
 The court asked for informatio' from Attorney John ONeiH resardins his bill for S20o in suit agalhs1 !n' Globe Publishing company. MI O,Neill said that natural modesty pre- vented him rom HllilS 'l piSF't '
 He thought his services ln me SUI and to tine receiver were worth th' snm he asked. The suit was neye tried. it having been disposed of Witt satisfaction to the plaintiff, he havln: been given judgment in another sui against the writer of the article tha caused the suit against the paper. Th' court snid he would think the matte over. IT.
 X motion to strike out in, and amend the complaint in the suit of Clemen F. yerzier ct al against Augustine Y Coward, was allowed.
 Two motions for the same purpose to wit: that the defendant be requires to specify in the suits of A. M. Burrit ys A. 0. Burritt. occasioned man. smiles among the spectators and feel ing between counsels. Attorneys Bron son and John ONeill. Attorney Marsh
 A