The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1909-11-11
LOCAL HOTEL MAN INVOLVED.
Thomas J. Heaphy the Defendant in
Damage Case.

Thomas J. Heaphy the Defendant in
Damage Case.
After an adjournment since last
Saturday the County Court convened
Tuesday morning, the case before it
being that of Abbie Duggan VS.
Thomas j. Heaphy, the proprietor of
the Pavilion Hotel. This is case
over the loss of an arm due to an in
jury received on a mangle owned by
the defendant and operated at his
laundry at the Pavilion.
The case began at 8 o'clock with
the empanelling of a jury which con-
sisted of the following men: Edward
ID. Bartlett, of Plainfield; E. D. Bar
ton, of East Montpelier; Arthur C.
Brown, of Berlin; George Coffrin and
Fred Corliss, of Calais; F. NJ. Drink
water, of Roxbury; John E. Hogan,
of Berlin; George w. Hunt, of Barre;
c. E. Louisell, of Duxbury; F. R. Nor
throp, of Barre Town; w. ]. Palmer,
of Waitsfield, and w. E. Thompson,
of Waterbury.
The first witness called by the
plaintiff was the defendant, Mr..
Heaphy. He was interrogated re-
garding the working of the machinery
of his laundry by Attorney Laird.
Mr. Senter objected to the questions,
stating that they had nothing to do
with the main issue and that the wit
ness should be examined regarding
the mangle only. After describing
/ the mangle, the witness was excused
and Abbie Duggan, the plaintiff, was
called to the stand. She testified as
to how the accident took place in
which she lost one arm. She said that
the defendant had asked her if she
could run the mangle, telling her that
| she was to take the place of the reg
| ular operative, Nellie Cashen, while
the latter was on her vacation. After
that she had run the mangle when
ever it was necessary.
After the opening session in the
afternoon, a short recess was taken
to allow the jury and attorneys to go
to the scene of the accident at the
Pavilion to view the mangle. On
their return, the afternoon was given
over to hearing the testimony of a
number of witnesses for the plaintiff.
Mrs. Mccormack, who has run the
mangle for eight or nine years was
the first called to the stand and she
testified as to the condition of the
mangle, stating that she had had the
guard rail removed from the ma
chine, as by so doing it was easier to
perform the work and it could be
done faster. 1t was because this rail
was not in place that the plaintiff lost
her arm. The next witness called
was John Sheahan, who formerly
worked at the house and knew some
thing about the mangle.
He was followed by Walter Bailey,
of Waterbury. Mr.. Bailey is an ex-
pert on mangles and is foreman of
the laundry at the State Insane Hos
pital. He told of the danger of re-
moving a guard rail from a machine,
especially for novice. The last wit
ness on the stand was Mrs. David
Burns, sister of the plaintiff, who
told of the suffering which her sis
ter had undergone, laying particular
stress on the night of the amputation.
The painful news was received by
Judge e. l.. Waterman on Tues
day afternoon that his brother
had died at Brattleboro. His Honor
did not stop the session but contin-
ued hearing the case, so that ca
sual observer would never guess that
there was death in the family. Judge
Waterman left for his home Wednes-
day afternoon to attend his brothers
funeral.