The Robesonian. [volume] (Lumberton, N.C.) 1870-current, 1909-03-08
SUIT AGAINST TOWN.

ooA~ VI AAAo. NAdI anu OOpnTO-
MIA Purneil Against Town
OF Lumbertor, for $1O,-
600 Damages -TheSaid Mule.
Some time ago Mrs. Mary Pur-
nell and her little daughter,
Sophronia, by their next friend,
the husband and father, Mr..
K. G. Purnell, and through their
attorneys, Messrs. Mclean &
Mclean and w. H. Kinlaw, in
stituted suit as ainst the town of
Lumberton for damages alleged to
have been received while at
tempting to cross the gully on
Water street. The injuries were
received more than a year ago,
in December, 1907, and the
action was begun last July, but
complaint and answer have only
just been filed.
Mr.. and Mrs. Purnell live in
East Lumberton. They are
praying for relief in the sum of
so, 900, all told-$5, 900 as balm
and salve for injuries received
by little Miss Sophronia and
IS, 900 for Mrs. Purnell. The
complaint sets forth with ex.
ceeding minuteness, after the
usual manner of instruments of
the kind, how on a day Mr..
and Mrs. Purnell and their child,
in a buggy and driving a mule,
started to cross the wooden
, bridge that at that time spanned
the gully on Water street; how
at the said time the town
was filing the said gull
= ly with dirt and that for
the more expeditions dumping
! of the said dirt in the said gull
! ly an arrangement in the ma
, ture of a trap door had been
fixed on the said bridge; how
; the said mule pulling the said
j buggy. in which said buggy
were the said people, came to
the said trap, which said trap
g had been left in dangerous
e condition, and the said mule
S backed against the railing of
n the said bridge, which sale
: railing gave way and the sale
v Mrs. Mary Purnellwas thrown up
e on the bridge andthe said Sophro
MIA was precipitated to the groun(
e some Is feet. Wherefore dam
al ages in the above said sum are
e prayed for.
n The answer, filed by Messrs
e Mcintyre, Lawrence & Proctor
:, is also clothed in much language
h and with much Circumstance
1t each and every paragraph O
!, the complaint is answered
\. Among other things the answe
deposes and says: THE injur.
n of which the plaintiffs complain
ar was caused by the carelessnes
s. and negligence Of the plaintiffs
. husband and father, r. G. Pun
Sc nell 4 4: .: * in carelessly and neg
tn ligently going upon said bridg
al with said mule = : in a bugg
ne which was crowded to such a
i'll extent that the said R. C. Pull
or nell could not properly or safel
drive the said mule and prote(
nt those within said buggy, tn
ne said buggy being unduly crowt
,c ed and containing" etc., ett
nd And further: "All of said pa
oil ties knew that the said mule We
to unsafe, dangerous, unduly sui
he ject to fright, especially whe
at. crossing a bridge, and that sa
1ie mule would shy, take fright ar
nd refuse to cross bridges withol
cause, and that when an attem1
~ was made to force said mu
No across with a3whip or otherwis
ne ne it was the custom, habit and di
an ~ position of said mule to refu
80, - to go forward and to attempt
90, ,so turn around"; that when sd
19e mule reached a point near t
o ono end of said bridge farthest fro
4n the county jail he became frig
, =" tened at something, and cocki
rSe his ears the said mule stoppe
r,a . and that instead of getting c
Il " of said buggy the said R.
Purnell began to beat said mu
ack we'll knowing that the said MI
ub- was unsafe and dangerous
driving purposes; that he "
=, skittish, skary, and unduly ST
a 1 ject to fright, especially upon
ny bridge, and we'll knew that WI
3 : said mule became brighter
! 70 upon a bridge no amount
nee whipping could force said m
OF forward against his will E
..e nC stubborn disposition - und
lseS weiter.
au- Poor mule. The answer {
son, tainly lays heavy charges on h
ne. ne, 1t doth not yet appear, of coul
nus what will be the outcome of
anu case.