Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-03-07
SUPREME COURT.
West Gardiner Road Ma
chine Action on Trial.
Case viii Go to The Jury Be-
fore This Noon.
Personal Damage Action Next Mat
ter 70 Be Heard.

|
morning, was begun the civil action
of w. S. Philbrick Of West Gardiner
versus the inhabitants of the town
| Of West Gardiner. This Is an action,
with the ad damnum placed at $25o0
to recover damages for injuries al
| legged to have been received in rum
away accident said to have been caus'
| ed by a roadway blocked by a road
! machine and two detached horses. The
accident occurred on the Pond road
so called, Sept. 10, 1906.
The case was heard before the sec
| ond Jury Of which A. E. burlington Of
| Waterville is foreman. George w
Heselton. Esq. Of Gardiner appeared
as counsel for the plaintiff and Charles
L. Andrews, Esq. and Arson NJ. God
dard. Esq, of Augusta for the defen-
dant great deal of interest was
manifested in the case and residents of
the town Of West Gardiner were much
in evidence at Fridays session Of the
court.
After the opening by Attorney Hesel-
ton on behalf Of the plaintiff adms-
sions were made as to the road being
a public highway, as to Frank E. Sher-
burne being the road commissioner Of
the town and as to the service OF a
notice within the prescribed limit Of
time, IA days.
Seven witnesses were sworn in be-
half of the plaintiff and the first wit
ness called was DR.. William o. Cobb
of Gardiner.
Dr. Cobb testified to attending the
plaintiff at the home of Mrs. Richard
son. He found a dislocation of the
right arm and three ribs on the right
side broken three or four inches from
! the backbone.
Mrs. Smith Merrill, who lives few
rods from the scene Of the accident.
testified to seeing the plaintiff drive
by with his wife on the day in ques-
| ton. She heard a woman screaming
few moments later and saw the
plaintiff on the ground with men about
| him. Mrs. Philbrick was running
about, wringing her hands.
After the regular morning recess
Winfield S. Philbrick, the plaintiff.
took the stand. Me testified to the
road commissioners horses blocking
the road, to running into these horses
in an attempt to pass and to his horse
! DeCOlllHB lIlSIleutu anu
away. He explained that he had driven
the horse for years and that the ami
NAL was especially gentle. ......--
| Attorney Heselton asked how far the
scene of the accident was from the
home of the witness.
1T does not seem to me more than
three miles, does it to you?" asked the
witness.
! 81 can't answer that" said Attorney
| Heselton, smiling.
AS the witness told his story Of the
accident he illustrated it dramatically.
His hands grasped the reins, he leaned
| forward as a man might If he We're
driving through a narrow place and
when he came to the moment of con-
tact struck the rail in front of him
| forcefully.
| And then. for moment or two, l
did not know just what did happen"
he declared.
The plaintiff told of the great suffer-
ing which he had undergone and said
that the severe pain did not leave him
until Monday or Tuesday after the
Wednesday he was injured.
| On cross-examination the plaintiff
u
! away he saw that the place was dan
gerous and walked his horse.
/ Court adjourned for the morning
session a little before l o'clock until
go o'clock.
At the afternoon session. Mrs. Ada
E. Philbrick of West Gardiner. the
wife Of the plaintiff. testified that ne
purchased the horse six years prior t
the accident She had taken care o.
the horse when her husband was away
On the day of the accident the horse
was going at a medium rate of speed
and he was driven with due care. AT
ter the accident her husband suffered
great deal of pain.
Mrs. Elizabeth ]. Richardson, who
| lived near the scene Of the accident
testified to seeing the horse running
by. She went at once to the spot
There was a distance of about two
feet between the backs Of the horse!
and the edge Of the road. The plain.
tiff was removed to her house and re.
manned there II days after the acct
dent.
With the completion Of Mrs. Richard
sons testimony the plaintiffs case
rested A recess was here taken. Up.
on the resumption of proceedings ,ht
attorneys retired with Judge Peabody
for consultation. Upon their return
the jury was excused while a motion o
Attorney Goddard was being argued
Attorney Goddard argued on his mo
; ton that the court direct a verde
for. the defendant, that the object a
issue was not 4 defect in the road un
der the meaning of the statute. blu
stated that his principal grounds, wer
that the plaintiff had been guilty o
contributory negligence. He cited sew
eral Maine cases bearing on the point.
Attorney Goddard's particular argu
ment was that the plaintiff knew tn
, danger as he had testified that Will
: a a distance of eight rods he saw tina
the place that he would have to pas
, was dangerous. He continued that h
. could either have moved the horses o
|. could have asked to have them re
moved. The statement of Mr.. Goddar'
was that many decisions have estab
! lished that when a man braves eviden
. danger he takes his own chances an,