Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-11-03
Plaintiffs Verdict in Case
Wi|es vs. Hickey
Suit Of Chamberlain Against
Adams Now Before Court.
Baker Versus ". & +. Ry & Light
Co. Next on List.

In the Supreme court. Friday morn
ing. the jury in the case of z. DeForest
Wiles of Gardiner versus Roger Hickey
Of Farmingdale returned a verdict for
the plaintiff and assessed the damages
at 5000.
! The action was one in tort, with the
ad damnum placed at $500, to recover
damages for the barn and contents of
the plaintiff valued at $953.12. due. SO
the plaintiff alleges. to the negligence
of the defendant, who was employed
| by him. The plaintiff contended that
| the defendant was responsible for the
| fire. 1t probably catching from sparks
| from the defendants pipe.
The defence was the general denial
and the defendant testified that he had
not been smoking on the day Of the
fire.
Guy A. Hildreth. Esq, of Gardiner
appeared as counsel for the plaintiff
ana Arson Nj. Goddard, ESD, of Au-
gustd for the defendant.
The next case was that Of Bert O.
Chamberlain versus Mortimer Z.
Adams, both of Waterville, an action
placed at $4,000. to recover damages for
an assault committed June s. 1905, at
NVatcrville on the plaintiff by the de-
PENDANT. who was at that time marshal
of that city and who arrested the
plaintiff who was a police officer of the
city of Waterville and who was
charged with the crime Of rape.
The plaintiff alleges that he was shot.
through the right leg with revolver
BY the defendant and 4 very dangerous
wound was inflicted, incapacitatinS the
plaintiff for some time.
Brown a Brown of Watervile APP
peared as counsel for the plaintiff and
Warren C. Philbrook. Esq. of Water
vile for the defendant.
The defendant contended that at the
time alleged in the plaintiffs writ and
declaration that he was the city mar
shall Of Waterville, then and there duly
authorized to serve criminal precepts
and to perform all other duties re
uuirei to be done by him as city mar
snail under the provisions of law in
such case made and provided; and that
he, the defendant, then and there held
q warrant issued by a court which
the same, the municipal court Of
Watcrville. in which warrant the
plaintiff, Bert Q. Chamberlain, was
charged with having committed
felony, and under the command con-
tanned in the warrant he, the de-
PENDANT. was attempting to arrest the
plaintiff, who was seeking to escape
such arrest.
The defendant also said that what
ever acts he did We're done by him as
peace officer, in the process of the SER
vic OF the warrant and that his acts
were justifiable in law and necessary
under the circumstances of the case.
The defendant further contended that
at the time and place Of the acts COM
planned of in the plaintiffs writ and
declaration he had reason to believe
that the plaintiff was armed with re-
volver. that his life and bodily safety
were threatened by the plaintiff and
that whatever was then and there done
Nv the defendant was done in self-de-
fence.
The evidence on both sides had near
" all adduccd when court adjourned
Friday evening until 10 o'clock Sat
urday morning.
The next case to be tried is that OF
Alfred d. Baker, through his father,
Peter Baker of Fairfield versus the
Waterville & Fairfield Railway and
Light Company. This is a personal
injury case, with the ad damnum plac-
"a at 100000 George G. Weeks. Esq.
Of Fairfield appearing as counsel for
the plaintiff and Heath & Andrews of
Augusta for the defendant corporation.
The writ alleged that on February
was between 10 and IL years Of age, |
while in the exercise Of due care was |
walking or ere" ping on the roof of the |
Lincoln school building at Fairfield and |
gra bbed wire owned by the defendant, |
receiving an electric shock because the |
wires insulated in a safe ana proper |
manner. His hands We're burned and |
laccrated and il was necessary to am
putate the second and third fingers of |
the left hand and the nerves, muscles |
and lgamcnts Of the left hand were so
ing fingers Of the hand were rendered
useless
The Baker case will be followed by
the personal damage action Of Mar
garet Walker of Waterville versus the
Augusta Steam Laundry Company of
Anc |