The Somerset reporter., 1908-12-31
Decisions In Somerset Cases.

Rescripts have been received here
from the Law Court, giving decisions
In two cases originally tried in the
Somerset Supreme Judicial Court and
subse quently carried on appeal to the
higher tribunal. Both cases had at
tracted much attention.
The accident which gave rise to the
suit, in the case of Thompson VS.
Hackett, occurred in September 1905
and the case was tried in the March
term of the Somerset s. J. Court. the
attorneys were Merrill & Merrill for
plaintiff and Forrest Goodwin for de-
PENDANT. The following is the re-
script:
! David p. Thompson va Wilfred E.
! Hackett. Rescript, Bird J. NO
| opinion).
This was an action ON the case to
recover damages for personal injuries
sustained by plaintiff by reason of the
overturning of the carriage in which
/ she was driving, resulting from the
fright of the horse alleged to have
been caused by an automobile oper-
ated by the defendant who failed to
stop his machine after the statutory
notice R. s., Chap. "a, Sec. 81, was
given by plaintiff.
( That the horse was frightened by
the automobile is not denied. The
main and practically only question is
whether the automobile stopped.
! Upon this point was the evidence of
/ the plaintiff and her companion on the
one part and that of defendant upon
| the other. This evidence presented
many sharp contradictions. The jury
found for the plaintiff. A most care
full reading and re aiding of the evil
dence fails to show either circum-
stances or Independent facts which
carry conviction that the verdict was
Individually wrong upon this issue.
Nor can we come to the conclusion
that the finding of the jury upon the
defence of contrbutory negligence
was likewise erroneous. The charge
of the justice presiding is not found
in the record and we must assume
that proper instructions were given.
Under such inst ructions the question
of contributory negligence was for
the jury. We find nothing in the
record TO make this case an exception
to the rule.
Motion overruled. Judgment for
the plaintiff.
The case of Padham VS. Meader as
tried at the September term. The
plaintiff is a resident of Norridge-
wock, the address of the defendant Is
given as Lewiston, Maine, and Fitch
burg, Mass. Geo. w. Cover of this
place was counsel for Padham and the
defendant was represented by Leroy
R. Folsom of Norridgewock and Au-
gustine Simmons, Esq, of No. Arson.
The rescript is as follows:
Frank Padham vs. A. s. Meaderet al
Per Curtain rescript. NO opinion J.
Only two questions appear to have
been in actual controversy at the trial
First, whether the defendant was to
pay for regarding logs up to 200 M
or only for logs in excess of 200 Nj
Second, whether the defendants
agreed to defer the cutting and haul
ing logs from one of the lots named
in the contract until the second win
ter or only until September OF
October preceding the second winter.
/ Upon both these questions there
was nothing inherently or otherwise
! improbable in the plaintiffs version,
and there was direct evidence in sup
port of it. We do not find the evil
dence to the contrary of sufficient
weight to overcome the jury's verdict
in favor of the plaintiff.
Motion overruled. Judgment on
the verdict