The Baraboo news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1884-1911, 1905-04-26
,vroro Wednesdays Daily.)

Raraboo Telephone company
-. ~. Given to the jury today. On the
':,srnoon 'a' r of Aug, 13, 1903, the little
=, ~. If the plaintiff was killed by a
\ .,rsnbone pole falling upon him.
r,.IIi,m m Bailey of Baraboo, and
. r.nrv WaIratb, whose address is
.ot known, we're taking down an
~ mile which stood in the tree
n .s,t bv the side eof Trinity Episcopal
.nrcb on Sixth street in this city.
w. the death of his son, Orvis, Mr..
. y,3e brought suit for $4,000
ianages
On the part of the plaintiff it was
,.dtbat the death was the result
1.-THE telephone company not using
+,e ordinary care in taking down
ne pole, and'for this reason the
Mporation was liable.
Nm the other hand it was held
nat the little boy had been warned
.,Deatedly to keep away, that the
ntractor and not the company
v,s liable and that the unfortunate
r,urrence was an accident.
These questions we're embodied in
aeciaI verdict submitted to the
;rr as will be seen below. Many
dpts Of law we're involved which
71de the case a complex one and
nf the most important at this
rn Of court.
Expert Testimony.
As to whether or not the proper
are was exercised much expert
Himony was taken. The managers
ttar Rcedsburg, Portage, Madi-
n, KiIbourn, and Baraboo tele-
ine companies testified that two
ben we're all that we're necessary IN
lf1g down such a pole and also
OEed how such work is ordinarily
lone. Just as it was coming down,
tepOle broke.
Messrs Clark of Chicago, said that
from three to five men should be
Employed in removing a pole, and
ID. Bell, formerly manager otthe
Blraboo Telephone company. testi-
ed that five we're necessary. Some
1.-THE testimony on this point was
tlted.
According to the testimony of
T Marcus J. Simpson, who was
ildng at a window in his residence
ael the accident happened, the
ttRfellow was warned to keep
way but as the pole came down he
Shtd beneath it.
The pole weighed 1876 pounds, and
&of cedar.
AStO whether or not A. S. Munsell,
aocannot belocated, had contract
tle work, there we're some in
s resting pojnts for the jury to
''ue From the testimony it ap-
'dsd that Mr.. Munsell entered
7" acontract to build some of
Fnaln lines tor $800.0O. This con
'|' Was dated June /, 1903. Not
'uS any capital the men were
Ny 0y orders from the contractor
'uV treasurer of the company
'"on time to time Mr.. Munsell
gwen moley on his salary. The
~F@uY realized that they we're
'"us the work done at low fig
al0 entered jntoa new contract
''~' dated July 26, 1908, by
,'u another portion of the plant
S'.''Y was to be built. Unfor-
s'FIy this contract was not
~ Just when the work was com
''o and in dating the same the
~, vas made July 20, 1908, in
l,~o' oo June 26, 1903. The date of
!, ~ 1913, happened to be Sun
,,4 4Tn'e the question of whether
,,I '1e existing contract was
y pore on the suit involved.
ssS The wrong dating the books
pn,,n company show that Mr..
y rsu su was paid $34O more than
,p5 5I"acts ~. called for. On the one
spt,,s 'u'S would appear that the
peorSss rS's were questionable but on
ath o,a uald it was explained
Se COMFY tsuer to avoid trouble with
esp oaia @''Or S men, the orders had
Suo that Mr.. Munsell