Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-08-25
49, --a'
FROM LAW COURT.
Rescripts Handed Down in kennebsc
and Piscataquis County Cases.


Young vs. Ira H. Randall, and the
second in the Piscataquis county case
of Dudley B. Whitney ct al. VS.. Eliza
| beth A. Skillings ct ais, have peen
handed down by the law court:
| Frank o. Young VS.. Ira H. Randall.
Raseript, Ono opinion) per curtain.
Tort for personal injuries while OPP
Grating swinging circular saw In de-
PENDANTS employ. This cause has al
ready been before this court on motion
of the defendant for new trial: Young
VS.. Randall, 104 Me-, 1876. In the opln-
ion of the court the facts in evidence
in the former trial are fully stated. At
the new trial of the cause the plaintiff
alone testified as to the facts upon
which the alleged liability of the de-
PENDANT is predicated and at the close
of plaintiffs evidence, the presiding
Justice directed a non suit. The case
| is now before us upon exceptions to
this, direction.
| A careful comparison of the state
ment of facts in Young v. Randall,
supra, and the testimony of the plain
| tiff in the record now before the court
fails to develop any substantial differ
ence, except, stating it most faVorably
for him. that the plaintiff now denies
| that he appreciates the tendency of the
saw to draw to itself logs which were
not held at both ends against the up
rights.
| The rule as to assumption of the risk
hy the servant relates not only to GAN
gers which he knows and appreciates
Where one enters into the service Of
| hxy irt1 II bn MIR
he assumes the risk of all obvious and
apparent dangers which are incident
to the business, and of all which, by
the exercise of reasonable care, one OF
his age, care and experience ought
to know and appreciate. He also as
sumes the risk of all dangers of which
| he knows and which he should appre-
ciate whether obvious and Vislhly APP
parent or not" Young v. Randall,
supra or as stated by the Federal
| Courts, the servant assumes the risk
of dangers or defects which are known
| to him or are SO potent as to be read
lily observable by him: Texas & Pac.
| Railway v. Archibald, ITO U. S. 665,
671-4; Choctaw &c. r. r. Co. v McDade,
191 U. S., Ga. GO.
In his declaration the plaintiff al
leges that the saw table was defective
cts. in that it was not provided with
any standards or upright pieces suf-
ficiently near the path of the saw, so
that a log or bolt could rest against
the same and be held steadily in place
and prevented from swinging in upon
the saw.
In the opinion of the court, Young
n a of
court says "He saw the lack of pro-
lection, and with his experience he
must or at least should have known
the risk attendant upon the saving of
a stick resting against only one sup
port and again THE foreman could
have told him nothing that he himself
could not see and appreciate"
Assuming the absence of the requis-
tie uprights and that he truthfully
states that he did not appreciate the
tendency of the saw with reference to
a log not steadily held Davis V.
Greene, % Me, 254) we must hold that
it did not require experience even with
q saw mill with movable table for a
man of mature yeafsiand average in
telligence to know and appreciate the
tendency of all saws to disturb the
position of the article operated on I'M
less firmly held during the operation.
If he did not appreciate the tendency,
he ought to have done so.
When the evidence presented by the
plaintiff with all the influences which
a jury would be justified in drawing
from the same, is insufficient to sup
port a verdict in his favor, so that it
would be the duty Of the court to set
aside such a verdict, if rendered, the
presiding justice is not bound to sub
NIT the case to the Jury, but may
properly order nonsuit: Golden V.
Ellis, 1O4 Me-, III, 1873; II Att. Rep. GAG.
We must find this statement of the
law applicable to the present case and
that the nonsuit was properly ordered.
The exceptions must be overruled.
Dudley B. Whitney ct al. VS.. Eliza
beth A. Skillings ct ais.
Kescript, (no opinion) Bird, J.
Bill in equity for the specific per-
Torrance of contract for the con-
veyance of real estate alleged to be evil
denced by the memorandum in writing
following:
Cambridge, Maine, May Z, 1906.
Reed. of E. p. Ring and D. 3.
Whitney one hundred and three 49-100
part payment on farm to be decided to
them by the undersigned on Thursday
next. Weather permitting.
I'D. A. Skillings,"
The cause was heard by a single JUS
tice upon the oral evidence of the COM
plainants. His decree was that the bill
be dismissed. The compliments APP
peal.
The defendant Elizabeth A. SkilliEgs
was the owner of farm in Parkman,
Maine. and, with her husband d. A.
Skillings one of the defendants, had
occupied it for several years next prior
to the date of the receipt 4
On Thursday next succeeding the
date of the receipt, the compliments
called upon Mrs. Skillings prepared to
pay her the balance of the alleged con-
sideratiOn for conveyance. This she
refused to make and a few hours later
conveyed the premises to Gilman and
Bailey, the other defendants.
There was ayidanoo tending tn