The Somerset reporter., 1902-04-03
Somerset s. j Court.
March Term 1902


DEPUTIES r s. Williams, Hartland; f. L
Harding, Madison c. b. Haskell, Pitt field; +.
5. Parsons, No. Arson; G. l.. Duren, Fairfield;
{. F. Ham, bingham; Sidney r. Baker Scion F.
F. Caswell, +. New Portland; c. ". Farrand.
Norridgewock.
Friday, March 2Sth, the case, Milford
Withee VS.. the Somerset Traction ON
pany begun the day before was con-
Guided 1t appeared by the evidence for
the plaintiff that on the morning of July
4, 1900, Withee had charge of the car
which left Madison at o'clock, in his
capacity as conductor. The car was
densely crowded, people standing be-
tween the seats, thronging both front
and rear platforms and the running
boards on both sides. Just before the
accident the car was stopped to allow
two passengers to board the car. Nithee
had collected the fares of those on the
car, and crossing the rear platform,
started down the running board on the
right side of the car, to collect the fares
of those on the car, and crossing the
rear platform, started down the running
board on the right side of the car to col.
lect the fares of the two new passengers.
To do so, it was necessary for him to
take hold of one of the handle bars on
the side of the car, and step out around
one or two men TO catch the next handle
bar. While In this position, and when
the car was under full speed, his head
came in contact with one of the poles
along the line of the road. He was
knocked from the car, and thrown VIC
lently for several feet, turning over and
over a number of times. He was rem.
dered senseless, and carried to his home,
where he was confined to his bed for
| four weeks. Since that time he had lost
| much flesh and suffered from pain in
| the head and sleeplessness. The negli-
gence of the company alleged was in
| allowing the pole against which the
plaintiff was carried to remain as it was
set, too near the track.
The defense as outlined by Mr.. Cover
in opening for the company admitted
| that Withee had received an injury
while in the discharge of his duty as an
employe of the company, but it was the
primary result of his own caIelessness,
for which the defendants were in no
way liable. He explained the building
of the road was largely for the benefit of
the public. He claimed that the plain
tiff was grossly negligent and that he
knew all about this pole and its near
ness to the track That in entering the
employment of the company he assumed
all risks that are open and apparent of
which this was one. AS conductor,
Withee was in absolute control of the
car, had right to limit the number of
passengers. 1t was also claimed the
| plaintiff did not have hold of the handle
bar when he was struck but instead
placed his hand on the shoulder of one of
the men standing on the running board
when he swung out which allowed him
to swing out foot or so further from
the side of the car.
The jury viewed the scene of the acct
dent, Friday morning, The case was
given to the jury about 2 o'clock, p. m.
and after about two hours considera-
ton the jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff of 81 472 0S:.S The defense sub
mitted a motion that the verdict be set
aside and new trial be granted and the
case is to be taken to the law court on
| this motion.
| The case Walter Cowett, by next
friend, vs.. The American Wooden Com
pany was next tried, beginning Friday
| afternoon This was suit to recover
for personal injury sustained by the
plaintiff in the employ of the defendant
company, alleged to be due to the negli-
gence of the company in providing de-
| fective machinery for the plaintiff to
work with and in not giving proper in
| structions to warn him of its dangerous
character.
| The defense claimed that the case was
entirely without foundation, and was an
| accident for which no one was RESPONSE
| BILE. The "boss" of the room at the
| time the plaintiff was injured and the
| second hand both testified that he had
received full and complete instructions
in regard TO the cleaning of the machine
| and knew all about il. The de-
Tense also maintained that there was
no evidence that the machine was not a
reasonably safe one, and free from de-
| fects,
The circumstances of the accident, as
stated by the plaintiff, are as follows:
On Jan. II, 1901, he was working in the
carding room of the defendants mill in
| ~kowhegan. He had been in the EN-
ploy of the company for two years and a
| half and for five or six weeks previous
the accident he had worked at filing
the feeds and cleaning cards in this
room The machine on which he was
| injured was what is known as "a breast, "
| and had recently been placed in the
| mill. He was aware of its dangerous
character in general, and in cleaning
the cog wheels on the outside of the
machine was careful not to get his fin
gers caught. On This day he was told
| to clean the wool from the cylinder and
stripper, while the machine was running
and while so doing his left hand was
caught 10y a screw head or projecting
collar on the cylinder and drawn be-
tween the teeth of the rolls, crushing
and mangling it, So that he lost his little
| finger and a portion of the the third
| finger, and a large part of his hand The
| Jury visited the mill and viewed the ma
chine and the premises.
| The case was gwen to the jury about
| 10 80, Saturday morning, and after about
one hours consideration, a verdict was
reported for the plaintiff of S1034S IS,
| Forrest Goodwin, Esq was counsel for
the plaintiff and Dauforth IL Gould for
the defendant.
| On Friday, the action, the Inhabitants
of Fairfield VS.. the Inhabitants of Har
mony, assigned for trial this term, was
defaulted for $1,000, and the suit of
Reuben Ring & Co vs.. Henry p. Nc.
| kenney ct al was entered "neither
party" A divorce was decreed to
Annie Mosher from Ulysses 5. G.. Mosher
on the ground of adultery, and the libel
| ant awarded $500 in addition to her
real estate rights.
On saturday the case Napoleon Gill
| bert pro ami, Va. William Wilcox and
William Morrison was tried, with " al