Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-11-09
Jury Awards Plaintiff Damages
in Sum Of $50.
Important WatervilIe Case Referred
to the Law Court.

gument in discussion as to the i'm
possibilities and inproba bilities of the,
compar's liability under the circum-
stances brought out by the witnesses
for the defence. Mr.. Heath made a
the defence. claiming in part that the
accident Was caused by coIributary
negligence on the part of the plaintiff
In the summing up of the defence he
stated that it was simply case where
the practical common sense of an eX-
pc: fenced jury would come into play
in the rendering OF verdict.
The final argument for the plaintiff
by Joseph Williamson was made in
less time tnan that Of attorney for the
defence. Mr.. Williamson called the
attention OF the jury to the splendid
example Of Oratory as displayed by the
opposing attorney and stated that had
Nh. Heath taken sufficient time he
would have been able to convince the
Jury, through means of his 0ratory.
that there had been no accident what
ever and that the defendant company
was Il much abused concern. Mr.. Will
Hanson said that however strong the
arguments of SuppOSition and impOSSi-
ihiltiCS and improba bilitieS, the facts
were the only things to be considered
in the finding Of a verdict. He stated
that without a doubt, to any man of
average intelligence. it had been prov
on that the defendant cOmpany'S fail
ure of duty to its employees was pre-
eminent to all other facts. He then
gave lengthy review Of the case and
surroundings, giving emphasis to those
points which had been brought out on
the witness stand.
After the final arguments of the at
torneys Associate Justice Whitehouse
delivered his charge to the jury. He
explained to them their special mis-
sion IN such a case as had been
brought before the court and deScrib-
ed with minutencss the points of law
with which the case could be dealt.
He discussed at length the liability Of
an employer to his employees, stating
that an employer hiring Il man was
supposed 20 assume the liability of
that mans welfare. so far that The
man himself was exercising due care
in the carrying out Of his la5ors.
AS a final warning JGdge White
house charged the jury to weigh the
verdict on facts as presented, not by
sympathy of feeling and that the
weight of testimony must be measured
by the burden of truth and legitimate
statement.
Court was then adjourned until go
o'clock in the AFTERNOON Immediately
which the jury was sent out for de
liberation and the rendering of a YER
dict.
After being ont about one hour and
twenty minutes the jury returned to
The court roon and rendered d verdict
in favor of the plaintiff. The amount
asked by the plaintiff was for $1,000.
but the jury awarded him the sum
of $50.
During the period that the jury was
out in the Stafford w. G. a. Fuller
Co. case second jury was empan-
neled and sworn in. f. A. Barr of
Sidney was chosen foreman of the
second jury. After the empannelins
of the second jury the case assigned
for the Tuesday session OF the court
was commenced. 1t WIS the case Of
The TPe"ple's National Bank of Wa
tcrvile vs.. the <ennebec Water Dis
trict Heath d Andrews for the plain
Fer the defendant company
MIR. Heath, counsel for the plaintiff.
stated his side of the case and made
n brief outline OF the case in general
The claim against the defendant COM
pany is that of libility through ntgli-
gence and broken promise.
The cause of the suit is in a brief
form as follows: The plaintiff COM
.,any, tie Peoples National Bank has
in its possession a wooden mill occu-
pied by the National Wooden Co of
Waterviile. There are two mill build
ings and in which are installed ar
automatic sprinkling system. This
sprinklicg apparatus was installed by
tie defendant company. Kennebec Wa
ter District, and as the PLAINTIFF $
claim says this system is supposed
to be in running order for all times
About the middle of March there was
a leak in the system of one of the
mill buildings and the mill Superin-
tendont notified the Water District
Co.. " no stated that they would make
the repairs on condition that the own
ers would settle the costs of such re-
pairs. There was no controversy on
this point and the repairs were made
and the bill paid.
On April 26, 1910. fire broke out
in one of the buildings and it hap
pcned to be the building in which the
breakagc had occurred in the auto
matte snrinkling system. and which
it was supposed had been repaired
correctly. But during the fire the
Sprinklng system of the building re-
fused to work and the loss by fire
to the building and machinery there
in was to the amount Of $lo.0ao. which
amount the plaintiff company claim
as damages.
After the fire it was found that the
rcpairing on the sprinkIing system had
been made incorrectly. thus causing
the refusal Of the system to work at
the time of the fire. AS an issue the
Peope's National Bank claims that the
defendant company did not exercise
uroper care and diligence in the re-
pair of the hreakage in the system
and that they. the plaintiff company
did all that they We're to do under
such circumstances.
After the statement of the case by
Mr. Heath. a controversy arose as To
,ax+.,h;I;ty of hearing the case