Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-12-15
Final Adjournment viii Not 0c-
eur Until Next Week. ''
-Four Actions Argued at THURSDAYS Session
New Entries on the Docket. :.

| plaintiff by "a collision with a live wire
| while in the employ of the defendant
| company at Augusta a year ago last
| summer, near the Blaine residence at
the intersection of State and Capitol
| streets, had his flesh burned and lac
| Grated and one arm and a leg perma-
| nently impaired.
The case was tried before Associate
Justice William Penn Whitehouse at
| the October term of the supreme Judi
| Cial court in 1904, and the jury award
cd verdict for the defendant company.
| The case was carried to the law court
| on molten of counsel for the defendant
| on the ground that the verdict was
contrary to the law and the evidence.
Lewis a. Burleigh, Esq, of the law
firm OF Williamson & Burleigh of Au-
| guSta, argued for the plaintiff and laid
stress on the following points:
First-That the plaintiff offered evil
dence at the trial tending to show that
the accident was due to the negligence
OF the foreman in ordering the plain
| tiff to climb the poll and do the work
! without warning him that there was Il
| live Wire underneath.
| Second-That the plaintiff offered evil
dence tending to show that on the
evening following the accident in the
afternoon, that the foreman attempted
| to suppress newspaper accounts of the
affair in the local press
| ThiTd-That the plaintiff also offered
evidence tending to show that before
any controversy for settlement was
pending between the parties the de-
| PENDANT company through it manager
| a no Inin nd
offered him two checks, covering the
expenses of his doctors bills and re-
| quested him to sign Il release in full
| of all liability on the part of the COM
| pany.
| This the plaintiff claimed was evil
| dence tending to prove an admission of
| liability on the part of the defendant
| and exceptions were taken to the eX
| clusion of the foregoing evidence.
Norman L. Bassett, Esq. for the de-
PENDANT company, argued that the ver-
diet was a just one and in strict accord
| ance TO the law and the evidence in the
tcase.r. ..-. .. ..-. .....
| The next case on the docket for ar
gumeIt was that of Robert Cosgrove
VS.. the Kennebec Light & Heat Co.
The case has twice been tried, the first
time at the October term Of the SUI
preme judicial court in 1904 when the
plaintiff was awarded a verdict Of $500
and the second time at the last March
term of the supreme judicial court
when the jury returned a verdict in ia
vor of the plaintiff and assessed the
damage>at $780,
| The plaintiff claimed that Feb. IS,
1901, he was an engineer in the employ
| ,f M i,f1 OF N at
diner and in taking an electric light
in his hand to secure light to see q
steam guage and glass water valve, he
| received a shock due to the negligence
of the defendant corporation. The
plaintiff alleged that his hand was Sc
| verely burned, later necessitating the
| amputati ton of the third finger on his
| right hand. As a result Of the shock
his hand has become stiffened and has
| further affected his eyesight.
| Hon. Orville D. Baker of Augusta, in
| his argument for the defendant, con-
| tended that some of the witnesses for
the plaintiff did not tell the truth at
the trial and that the defendant was
not liable but that the accident was
due to the gross negligence of the
plaintiff.
ner, counsel for the plaintiff. on the
other hand. claimed that witnesses for
| the defendant lied at the trials and
that the accident was due to the neg
| ligencc of the defendant company.
| The next case argued was that of
| George. Tabar vs.. William H. Doug
| lass and his wife, all of Gardiner. The
| case was tried before Associate Justice
| Lucilius A. Emery at the October term
| of the supreme judicial court in 1904,
| and came to the law court on report.
\ The plaintiffs claimed that the de-
| PENDANTS enticed his adopted daughter
away from him and he brought suit to
recover payment for her services.
| Counsel for the defendant commended
that the girl had not been legally
| adopted and therefore the action cam
rot he maintained.
Hon. George w. Heselton of Gardiner,
appeared as counsel for the plaintiff
and Hon. Herbert NJ. Heath of Angus
ia, for the defendant.
The next case on the docket was that
of the Oakland Wooden Co. VS.. the
Union Gas & Electric Co. of Water
vile and the arguments had not been
completed when court adjourned last
night until $50 o'clock this morning.
This is an action in equity heard be-
fore Associate Justice William Fem
Whitehouse and came to the lew court
on report. William T. Haines, ESQ.,, and
Harvey d. Eaton, ESQ.,, of Waterville.
appeared as counsel for the plaintih
and Charles F. johnson. Esq, and
George X. Boutelle. Esq, of Water
vile for the defendant
The question at issue is to deter
mine the rights of the use of water on
the stone dam at the foot of Snow pond
in the town of Oakland. The plaintiff
> asked the courts to ascertain the rights
Of the parties and to enjoin the Defend
ant from the excessive use of water
at the point mentioned in the action.
Kennebec county cases will be argued
| in the following order: Church VS..
Knowles; PARROT Co. VS.. Davis and
trustee: Rich VS.. Hayes.
Court will probably not finally ad-