Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-04-15

For aught that appears, they may
have given their certificate upon hear
say information, and have never seen
the patient. In matter as important
as the determination that a person is
insane, and depriving such person of
his or her liberty, all the investigation
and evidence required by the statute
should be had before a commitment
can legally be ordered, and the record
should show it affirmatively. 1t does
not SO appear here. The non-suit was
rightly ordered.
Exceptions overruled.
Pellerin VS.. International Paper Co Re
script by Whitehouse, ].
The action set forth in the plaintiff I;
writ rests upon the allegation that the
staging was insecure and unsafe, the iron
rods were unable to sustain the weight
and broke and precipitated the plaintiff
a distance OF 10 feet to the floor of the
room. But there is no affirmative proof
of culpable negligence on the part of tine
deiendant company, and no presumption
OF such negligence arises from the mere
TACT that an accident happened. If there
is any presumption in such case il is
tnat the defendant has complied with the
obligations resting upon it equally with
other men. The fact that two of the de-
pendent hooks broke may be some evil
dence tending to show that they Were
not suitable for the use to which they
were applied. but it is not alone suti-
Cient 20 establish negligence on the part
of the defendant company.
The defendant kept in its storehouSe
sufficient materials for the construction
of the staging required by the WOrkmcn
in paintings the ceilings, ANA there is no
direct evidence that these materials Were
not suitable for that purpose. There is
no evidence that the defendant undertook
fN h no
w0rkmcn as completed structure. the
company did not assume the responsible
ity Of adapting specific hooks or planks to
the construction Of Il particular staging.
The plaintiffs fellow WOrkmtn obtained
the hooks and the planks from the COM
panyS StOrehOuSe. and erected the stag
ing themselves. There is no suggestion
that they Were not competent worklnen
Under such circumstances. II the PLAIN
tiff $ fellow workmen failed to exercise
due care in the adjustment of the planks
to the hooks and the accident resulted
from that cause the defendant company
IS not responsible.
1t is accordingly the opinion of the
court that upon well settled principles of
law the verdict was manifeStly not war
ranted by the evidence.
Motion sustained. Verdict set aside.
New trial granted.
Ida NJ. Bradbury vs.. Marcellus Knowl-
ton. Rescript by Whitchouse, j.
1t was not in controversy that the de-
fendant authorized the letter from
Thompson to Hamilton proposing to pay
for the repairs if he won the pending suit,
and the defendant does not deny that the
question of repairs was subject of dis
cussion between him and Hamilton in
Belfast. But he denies that either at the
interview with Hamilton or Shaw he ever
made an agreement TO pay for the re
pairs. He does not claim, however, that
at either interview he ever withdrew the
offer contained in the Thompson letter of
March 81. He won the suit and obtained
title to the hotel.
The plaintiff contends that the letter
and the interviews were all parts of 4
continuing negotiation. and that although
Mr.. Shaw, with extreme caution, would
only testify to his Impressions of the
interview in September, il must have
been to the same effect as the letter and
the interview with Hamilton otherwise
the plaintiff, on receiving the report from
Mr.. Shaw, would not have authorized the
repairs to be made at an expense exceed
ing the $3.50 due for rent. The jury were
evidently suppressed with this view of the
case, and we do not feel authorized to
say that their, scohclusion was unmis-
tably wrong.
Motion overruled. Judgment on the
verdict.