Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1910-01-07

locality was very dry Again: "Dur-
ing the time when the fires in question
were set, there was no change nor modi.
featIon IN the way the defendants rail
road was operated, the way its trains
we're made zap, the number Of loaded
cars hauled in a train, or the use Of a
helper engine on the grades in that
vicinity"
Another citation was made to t..
following: "rhe defendant corporation
took no extra precaution in respect to
caring for lis right of way through the
timber lands in question, notWithstand-
ing the dryness of the season; it did not
employ extra men to watch the right of
way or to assist in putting out the fires
other than to bring in other men from
other track sections" Hence Attorney
Dunnett commended, the negligence on
the part of the defendant company. Mr..
Stlckney concluded the contentious for
the plaintiff. He took considerable
time in defining aud illustrating the
negligence of which the report showed
there was evidence. lie emphasized the
point made by the report that the
reasonable care and diligence exercised
of an ordinary season would not be
reasonable care and diligence in a sea.
son of drought and extreme conditions.
such as the season OF 1903. That as
seasons go, the season OF 1903 required
more attention in order to preserve life
aud property.
Young & Young, for the defendant
company alluded to the finding in the
referees report that the defendant com.
panY's locomotives were equal in up-to-
dateness aud equipment to those made
aud required 10y the present standards.
They contended that this being case
where there was negligence, the decision
IN the case OF lde vs.. the Boston 4
Maine railroad was cited. There the
supreme court held that: There ia no
liability on the part of railroad CON-
pany for settling fires unless it is guilty
OF negligence" Further, Young 4
Young contended that the report was in.
adequate as fair test of liability, and
that it should either be recommittsd To
the referees for further findings on this
point or 1t should he set aside altoeeth-
er; the report contained no findings that
the defendant company was short in the
discharge of it, duty in any respect, ex-
cept that it made no change in its man.
agement during the dry season. To
this exception they replied that the de-
iendant company was in the exercise of
care and caution and that no change.
need to have been made, that whether
there was or was not change was i'm.
material. The defendants further con.
tended that the test of liability ia uegli- |
grnce, and that there was no negligence
in any material matter. 1t was further
commended by the defendant that the
titles to the lots were not sufficient to
entitIe the plaintiff to recover and that
tile defendants should have Judgment
for its costs.
The final hearing on the report lasted
about four hours. In giving his deci-
SION as to the report of the referees,
Judge Stanton gave judgment for the
plaintiff to recover the amount named
IN the report, amounting to 1874, 1892 90,
with interest on this amount from the
late OF filing the report. Exceptions I
we're asked aud allowed the defendants
md the cause will pass to the supreme a
'ourt for final hearing and Judgment, !