Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-12-17

Piscataquis County-Brown ct al. vs.
Starbird ct al Rescript by Savage. j.
lin an action of assumpsit upon an
account annexed the items were so
phrased as to show that they represented
various elements of damages resulting
from an alleged breach of contract or con-
tracts. The plaintiff offered an amend
ment which was allowed, by. adding
new count in which it was alleged that
the plaintiffs entered into a written con
tract with the defendants" which contract
was there set out in full: Breaches were
alleged and DANA ges claimed: NO prom
directly and positively asserted Held;
that the amendment was itself faulty. and
demurrable. and that it should not have
been allowed.
2--In such a case. an amendment may
properly be allowed in the form of a count
upon the special contract. alleging
breaches and claiming damages therefor
Eut such new count must be limited IN
its terms SO as to include only such
breaches rs were embraced in the items
in the account annexed. In this case the
amendment was not so limited.
Exceptions sustained.
Reed. Dec. 18th. 1903.
Piscataquis County-Alonzo +. Fuller VS.
William d. Blethen. Rescript (no opin-
iom. Per Curtain.
In this case the plaintiff recovered
verdict for injuries sustained by being
run over by the defendants horse. The
only ground now taken by the defendant
in argument in support of his motion to
set aside the verdict is. that there is no
evidence in the case having any tendency
to show any want of ordinary care on the
part of the defendant or of his servant
to whom he entrusted the horse III queS-
tfon. Upon this question there is pracl-
cally no conflict in the evidence The
facts may be summarized as follows: On
the morning of March ., 1900. the defend
ants servant drove the defendants team
from the defendants hotel in Dover to the
4
consisted OF horse hitched into sled
or p,ng. On each side of the sled were
two stakes about two feet apart. On each
side a board was nailed to the stakes to
support the seat After leaving a piece
of baggage at the baggage room, the dri-
yer drove the team around to the other
end of the station. and within two or
three feet of the defendants. passenger
hack. and there stopped. The driver
dropped the reins over the forward sta ke
of the sled, on the side next to the hack
and stepped off from the sled, Tor the
purpose of getting q blanket or robe from
the hack to throw over his horse to pro
tect it while waiting for an incoming
train. The morning was cold and the
air sharp. A locomotive engine was
on the track about ~ feet away
The, horse was headed in the direction
of the stable. Just after the driver step
ned from the sled. perhaps not more tran
a. second or So steam escaped from the
engine coming ont in a cloud. as 1t does
often. and the horse started and ran Inc
tdriver Sprang towards the SEQ put couiu
| not reach the reins. He did. however,
| reach the stake two feet in the rear OF the
reins He held onto this stake. and was
| dragged about 200 feet. when the stake
broke, and he was thrown to the ground
The horse after freeing himself from the
| pung and running half mile. ran over
the plaintiff. causing the injuries COM
| planned of.
| Although the driver went, perhaps. not
more than three feet from his team, ne
went so far, as the event proved, that
! the team was no longer within his con-
trol Whether it was negligence for the
driver to leave the horse as he did in view
sof the close proximity of locomotive