Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-25

| The law court handed down re-
script Friday sustaining the verdict
given by the lower court for George
| w. Barker & Son in the suit brought
| by Robert ID. Linn of Milford whose
| house was burned in a fire on April %,
| 1908. which destroyed a great
quantity OF lumber and burned nearly
the entire village. The fire was dis
| covered in a board pile near the mill
rented by the plaintiff. The rescript,
| which is drawn by Associate Justice
Albert NJ. Spear Of Gardiner is as fol-
lows:
Penobscot County.
Robert d. Linn vs. George w. Barker,
| ct al. Rescript. Spear, j.
| In April 1905, there were two saw
mills on the east side of the Penobscot
| in the town OF Milford owned by the
Bodwell Water Power Company, one
of which was rented to George w.
| Barker & Son, the defendants. From
| underneath these mills a small mar
row guage railway track led out and
down the east bank of the river for
several hundred feet. Its object was
| to remove waste and it was equipped
| with several cars for that purpose
| operated by hand. For 900 or 400 feet
at the south end of this railway ran a
| stone wall which was from four to six
| feet high on the west side, next the
| river, and by the steepness of the bank
and perhaps some filling. was about
even with the surface on the other
side. This place was called the dump
| and the practice for more than thirty
years had been to dump waste beside
the track along this wall and burn it.
Immediately east of this dump and
| extending nearly mile up and down
| the river. were large lumber yards or
piling grounds, where in April 1908.
millions of feet OF dry lumber We're
J stuck in piles. some of them nearly
thirty feet high. Between the dump
and the lumber was board fence
about 90 feet long and so feet east of
| the dump. ~
Milford Village was located near
these piling grounds, the main street
running about SEQ feet from the river
Shortly after 3 o'clock in the after
noon of April IS. 1905. a small blaze
Was discovered under the west end of
the pile of boards in the west tier of
piles next the west track and about
$50 feet northerly from the du,Hp
Mr. Barker, one Of the defendants had
been burning waste from both mills
and had fire then in the dump which
was started about O'Clock The fire
which was discovered in board pile
spread to the adjoining piles. burned
a vast quantity of lumber and .des-
troyed nearly all the little village
The plaintiffs residence was anCng
those hurned and they have brought
this action to recover therefor. From
the above statement of facts taken
substantially from the plaintiffs brief
they seek to establish two PROPOSE
| ti"ns. Cd that the fire in the board
Pill" caught from the dump; (2) that
| the Defendants negligence was re-
sponsibl".
The jury found avcrdict for tho de-
PENDANTS and the plaintiffs filed the
| usual motion to set il aside.
| We should have but little difficulty
in determining that the fire was com
municated from the dump TO the board
pile from which spread the conflagra
| ton that consumed the village. But
The second proposition, the atfirma-
tive of which the plaintiffs are re-
|
| troublesome question. The plaintiffs,
| upon notion are compelled to present.
| not only a strong preponderance OF
| evidence of the defendants negligence,
| but must assume the negative of
| showing that there was no other rea-
sonable inference from all the evil
| dence upon which the jury could act.
The burden in this case Is a hen
| and we are unahl" -
,laintiffs have sustained It. EhA DE-
| termination of this question depends
| upon all the circumstances in the case.
| natural and artificial. as they existed
and transpired on the 2Sth day OF
| April, 1905. In view of the whole
situation. then, were the jury war
ranted, if they believed the testi-
nony and saw fit to draw the infer
ence, in finding the following facts in
favor of the defendants:
| l. Was the use of the dump, as it
existed on the 2Sth day of April, an
| exercise of due care?
>. Was the fire sufficiently guard
ed?
3. Were the defendants provided
| With sufficient men and fire apparatus
| Ii view Of the duty devolving upon
| hem to anticipate the possibility OF
fire?
/. Were the weather conditions
such under all the circumstances that
the exercise of due care permitted the
use of the dump?
The court cannot say that the YER
dict upon these salient points is so
clearly wrong as to require re-
Iversal. Under our system of juris-
prudence. the verdicts Of iuries are en-
titled to their legal weight. Due re-
gard for this rule entities the present
lverdict to stand.
Motion oyerruled