Waterbury Democrat., 1901-02-28
JOHN o'NEML'S QUESTION.
So Long That The Head of It Was Lost Before the Foot Was Reached.

So Long That The Head of It Was Lost Before the Foot Was Reached.
 Counsel in the case of the town against the trolley company expect to finish it this week. Yesterday after noon was devoted to examining eX- perts and questions of great length were asked them. The following is an example:
 Question by O'Neill: "Now in reference to this particular case. As Suming that there was 9, railing there forty feet long which was q chestnut pole seven inches in diameter at the north end. the butt end, two inches and half in diameter at the south end: that there are four supporting posts, one at the butt enc, another eight of ten feet south of that. then next to that about eight or ten feet away a trolley pole twenty or thirty feet high about the supporting post anyway, q few feet high: that the next supporting post IS south of the trolley pole about ten feet away, and the last or fourth supporting post is about twenty feet away from the trolley pole: that the trolley pole is in the same general line of the four support ing posts and that the pole lies north and south, the guard rail: and that the west face of that trolley pole is in the same line with 2 straight line from the center of the top of the north post to the center of the top of the south post: that the chestnut pole is stripped of bark nine or ten years old. lain out in the weather during all that period of the time as q railing on 1he side or a highway, substantially stripped of bark sound: whether or not asSum- ing those facts to be true that l have stated to you. that pole. if it was sup ported at the north end or butt end and lay back of the trolley pole so that the pole at the middle. at the trolley was west of that west face Of that trolley pole. near To 1t. whether or not, assuming those facts to be true that have stated to you. such q pole as that could have been placed upon those four supporting posts that trol- ley pole being in that condition:'
 ASnbOrne was asked the above and without any hesitation said it could not be done Superintendent of Streets Reiley said he did not deem himself competent to answer. Ar Ashborne was asked to repeat the question but he could net do it. He made an at tempt which satisfied Mr O \eIll. but did not satisfy Mir Williams. The puf- pose of the question was to dlSprOVe the testimony of Nr Oviatt. who stated that the pole did rest on tEe center of the top of the four supporting posts prior to the accident to AShborne. but that the morning after the accident he put up the railing, but instead of putting it as he had stated he cut 1t where it met the trolley pole and nall- ed the ends to that pole.
 Counsel for the defense agreed that the fees allowed counsel for the town in the first case were reasonable and will therefore dispense with taking eyi- dencc on that point. Tine item Of costs seems to be their principal tar get Attorney Kellogg was on th<n stand part of the forenoon. He was asked why an appeal was taken from the trial in the district court when he knew the trolley company had not as sisted in the defense. He replied that it was because it was thought better to have the opinion of the higher courts on the matter. Mir Williams asked that this question and answer be stricken out. The court allowed that the question could be asked for three reasons: If the trolley company was satisfied to pay the judgment given hy the district court and the town thought it better to appeal: if the trolley company thought it advis- able to take the case to the superior court. and if the appeals Were founded on good faith. notwithstanding the town did not notify the trolley con- pany of its intention to take an an peal. The question was allowed. AIr Kellogg then told of conversations he had with Attorney Terry. counsel for the company. showing that the trolley company was aware of the towns in tention to try the case and to appeal in case the first trial went against the town. Therefore he must have had some idea of the expense of the re- reated trials and the course the case would have to go through before it could ba diSDosed of
 At 2 o'clock this afternoon the p1ain- tiff's case closed. Nr Williams moved for a non-snit but his motion was de- nied, and the case proceeded.
 HE SnTn JrprrT r- CTnrI-