The Somerset reporter., 1906-04-05

The injury to the plaintiff as claimed
by his counsel WAS sustained by him
while acting as fireman on train No. Al i,
from Portland to Waterville, due at the
latter city at 40 ?. m on the night Of
the accident just beyond the Front
street crossing, between there and Col
lege avenue, the train, freight train of
eleven cars, collided with an engine
which was preparing to be transferred
to another train, No. 90, going from
Foxcroft to South Gardiner. which had
not then arrived at the Waterville
station. The plaintiff seeks to hold the
Company liable on two grounds, first an
improper location of the semaphore Just
west of the Front street crossing, and
second the alleged negligence in allow
ing the single engine to be in the way
of train No. Al. which they claim should
have had a clear track to the Waterville
station.
The improper location of the sema
phore is the main contention upon
which the plaintiffs rely, and was made
especially emphatic in the opening of
counsel The semaphore was about
one hundred and thirty feet west of the
Front street crossing, on the north side
of the track 1t is claimed that owing
to the curve in the track at that point,
Just before reaching the crossing, and
the buildings ID the way. it is impossi-
BILE to see the semaphore until the
engine is too close upon II to stop ID
time to avoid danger. The semaphore
can be seen on leaving the bridge from
" inslow, but it claimed that at that
distance, it is impossible to distinguish
owing to the angle, whether the light
shows red or green, and whether danger
or the reverse is indicated Upon the
question OF negligence in the main
tenance of this semaphore the case
mainly turns
At the request of the plaintiffs coun
sci and by the consent of the Court the
jury visited the scene of the accident to
view the premises, Tuesday morning
going by 8 25 train and returning at
10 80, accompanied by the Sheriff and
the counsel.
Mr. Goodwin opened the case for the
plaintiff, at the close of which he called
the following witnesses and had them
sworn, all of whom, but the first named.
Mr.. Burleigh, are either at the present
time or had been previous to the acct
dent, long in the employ of the Maine
Central railroad and thoroughly familiar
with the scene of the accident.
John II. Burleigh, Waterville, civil
engineer.
Fred c Tillson, plaintiff
Louis S. Marquis, WateIville, engi-
neer.
James Coyne, Waterville, engineer.
Fred Roderick, Waterville. laborer
Chas II Barton, Waterville, engineer.
William G. Stinson, Leeds Junction,
formerly brakeman
John d. Baxter, Waterville, con-
ductor.
Harry Gordon, WaterYille, engineer.
Perlev Kendall Skowhegan, formerly
engineer on the Maine Central
b. w Lapham, Augusta, formerly an
engineer on the Maine Central
James l.. Minot. Wsterville, engineer
James f Munroe, Waterville, former
ly brakeman and conductor on Maine
Central
Alfred o. Flewellyn, Wateryile,
brakeman
William Murray, Wateryle former
yard master at that station
+ B Hubbard, Watervile who for
merly had charge of the atersille
station.
Their testimony occupied the time of
the court until the middle of the fore
noon of " ednesday, and WAS in reference
almost wholly to the semaphore in qnes-
ton. all testifying to its being defective
for the purpose for which il was intend
ed to serve.
Following upon this testimony the
following professional gentlemen were
called by the plaintiff and sworn:
DR.. +. G. Abbott, Portland Special
list in nervous diseases
Dr Chas. B. Wtherlee, Portland.
Prof of nervous diseases at Bowdoin
College, and consulting specialist on
nervous diseases at Maine General Hos
pital.
DR.. Frederick Gerrish, Portland At
present consulting surgeon of the Maine
General Hospital on nervous diseases.
Their examination was in the nature
of expert testimony given to show the
condition and treatment of the plaintiff
from the time of the accident DOWN to
and including the present time, he hav-
ing been under the care of DR.. Abbott
all the time since the accident, the other
gentlemen being called in consultation.