Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-12-03

Co In regard to the accident he knew
nothing from personal knowiedge ana
with the assistance Of counsel ne ex-
planned his duties around the hhifieul-
ate vicinity where the accident occur
red.
E. V. McMaster of Gardiner, Is also
in employ of the company anu mas
charge of the drying department. re
abs been in the employ of the company
for some % years. Witness testified to
building the ladder on which MI COS
grove stood at the time of the acct
dent 1t had been moved all around the
plant and sometimes was used Dy
p >ople in the village. Attorney Baker
cross-examined at considerable length
succeeding in making The witness make
rather indefinite replies.
Robert Coseroye. the plaintiff in the
case was recalled 10 the stand III
buttll to the ties imony OF j. w. berry
denied ever holding conversation win
the latter as he had testified carrier IN
the hearing. The crosS-eNanlnatlon pH
Attorney Baker was sharp ana sue
cceded in proving extremely interesting
to the spectators.
Ralph CosgroVe was recaiied 10 the
stand to reiterate his conversation with
J. w. Berry Immediately after the accl-
dent to the plaintiff. The witness de
MED ever holding and Such coilEefSa-
ton. Here both counsel rested the case
and Attorney Baker moved non SUIT
| The ground upon which MI. Baker
| moved this nOnSuit was, mat the
plaintiff in the case had brought i'm no
new evidence on the essential positions
| other than was intrni1ced at the hear
ing over a year ago before the supreme
court. The law court alter reviewing
the evidence Of this tilal ordered re-
trial as they rllei hat the verdict in
favor of the plaintiff was not in az
cordance with the evidence. This nom
suit would in Attorney Bakers mind
prevent any further prolonged litig;l-
ton in the matter ami at the same
time be in accordance with the evidence
presented
After considering tn" proposition Of
Attorney Baker. Justice Whithouse
| ruled that in view Of the eviderce pre-
scented it would be somewhat an injus
tice to the plaiutit 20 keep the case
from the hands Of the jury. At the
conclusion Of this controversy the court
TOOK Il recess OF ~ minutes
On resuming the hearing Attorney
Baker began his argument before the
jury. This plea was fully up to the
standard of Mr. Bakers previous pleas.
and proved 70 be interesting and in
structiVe to the large number of court
attendants and spectators present.
With little preliminary argument The
defendant counsel. started to tear to
shredS in tho network of testimony
of the plaintiff. After the summing up of
the other witnesses statements he
turned his attention to the testimony
of the plaintiff in the case. Robert Cos
grove. The testimony of Mr.. COSgroEa
vas denied by several cf the defendant
witnesses and Mr.. Baker in his most
smooth and polished manner. drew in
spiration from this fact. placing vivid
mind pictures before the jury. During
Mr.. COsgrove's testimony he had t"Sti-
fed to the fact Of the temperature in
the boiler rooms in til" early evening of
Feb. IS. 1903, had been fifteen degrees
above zero. Mr.. Baker used this trSti-
mony with considerable tluency. pro-
Voking considerable amusement by his
somewhat sarcastic iufercncrs from
this testimony. Fhe plea occupied over