Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-03-09
Verdict For Plaintiff In
Road Machine Case.
Matter Will Go TO Law Court
on Defendants Motion.
Action For Personal Damages Now
Before the Court.

In the supreme judicial court. ASSOCIATE
Justice Henry G. Peabody presiding. Sat
rrday, the jury in the case of Winfield
S. Phlbrick versus the Inhabitants OF
the Town of West Gardiner returned 4
verdict fOr the plaintiff and assessed the
damages ut s65S.12. Counsel for the de-
PENDANTS filed exceptions and stated that
the case would go to the law court on
the ground that the verdict was contrary
to the law and the evidence:
This was an action. with the I'D dam
nun placed 1T s25o0, to recover damages
for injuries alleged to have been received
in Il runa way accident said to have been
caused by 4 roadway blocked by road
machine nd two detached horses.
The case was heard before the second
jury of which y. l.. Purinton of Water
vile is foreman. The jury had the case
under elaboration for one and cne-Aalf
hours. George w. Heselton, Esq. of
Gardiner appeared as counsel for the
plaintiff, and Charles l.. Andrews, Esq.
and Arson NJ. Goddard. Esq, of Angus
IA for the defendant town.
At the afternoon session of court. Sat
uiu'N Wis btSuii INC case VI Ilci btl l
F.. Wymar of Litchfield. a minor through
his ne>t friend, his uncle. George y. Wy
man, versus Albert p. Berry of New
York. This is an action. with the ad
damnum placed ut $4,000, to recover for
tie partial loss of the plaintiffs right
hand in a feed cutter machine on the de-
PENDANTS farm at Litchfield due. so the
plaintiff alleges, to the negligence of the
defendant
Guy A. Hildreth, Esq, of Gardiner ap-
pears as counsel for the plaintiff. and
Oliver r. Clason, Esq. and George w.
Heselton. Esq, of Gardiner for the de-
PENDANT.
The case is being heard before drawn
jury of which Harry F.. Kinds of Gar
diner was appointed foreman by the
court
1t is claimed by the plaintiff that on
May II. 1906. the boy was taking feed
from the cutter at the order of the de-
PENDANT and caught his right hand. so
injuling'it that four fingers and part OF
the thumb had to lie amputated The
plaintiffs action is based upon the allie
CATION that the machine was defective in
that all its parts were not there Negli-
Sence on the part of the operator is also
claimed.
The big feed cutter was brought into
court as the plaintiffs exhibit The bulky
thing was carried up the courthouse
stairs by Deputy Sheriffs Frank II. Mar
shall and Frank II. Meady and Court
Messenger George S Peaslee and placed
within the bar enclosure
Seven witnesses were sworn in behalf
Of the Plaintiff. who was the first wit
ness The plaintiff testified that he is
now resident of Gardiner and was born
in Litchfield in 1890. He went to work
for the defendant May 1 and was injured
May II. 1906, and received his orders from
the Defendants foreman. W. w Wood
He had never seen Il feed cutter before
the day If the accident. After his hand
was caught in the machine he ran out the
back door of the barn to a neighbours
house and then went to Frank Berry :
house. where Mrs. Berry rolled the hand
up III n sheet. Was very weak but did
not faint. Was taken home By his father
and Mr.. Wood. Dr. r. W. Goss of I.itch-
field Corner attended the injury He re-
manned in bed eight days after the oper-
alton was performed, suffering intense
pain. lie was afterwards taken to the
Central Maine General hospital nj Lew
ISton. where lie remained eight days and
where another operation was performed
Marry all the evidence on the part OF
the plaintiff had been adducr1 when
court adjourned Saturday evening until
10 o'clock Monday morning.
The following 70 Some Of fba pcU an