Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-11-08
Case Of Stafford vs. Full
or Construction Co.
Is Claim for Injuries Received
al The State House.
Mondays Session Devoted TO Testi.
Arguments Today.

The case of George w. Stafford VS..
G. A. Fuller Co, was introduced at the
Monday session of the kennebec cOun-
~ supreme judicial court. The session
commenced at $50 o'clock, the presid-
ing jldge being Associate Justice Will
liam p. Whitehouse.
Joseph Williamson is the attorney
fer the plaintiff and Herbert NJ Heath
is representing the defendant COM
pany.
The case at issue is one Of libel and
is in brief form as follows: George
W. Stafford, lad about II years of
age, nirad out July s, 1910, to the G.
A. Fuller Co. as an ordinary laborer.
The Fuller c.. is the construction
company that has been building the
additions to the State House in Au-
gusta and through its superintendent
young Stafford was set at work doing
oGd jobs about the building such as
shOveling and wheeling the dirt, car
rving planks and lumber about the
building and assisting in general
way in the construction. 1t appears
that on the afternoon of July 81 he
was ordered to report to the foreman
of the crew thar was putting. the
a I'ttd WI ~ oIl Tie lIlSlut vi lIt
dome of the building. On so doing he
Was put to work carrying large planks
used in staging work for the masons
from the first floor of the building to
he fifth Hoor Where the crew was
putting up tie terra Gotta work.
With the assistance of another labor
er the plaintiff did what he was told
TO do. AS there We're no stairs to the
firth floor Stafford endeavored to move
the plank by means of the elevator.
The first trip was made without mis-
hap but on the second trip Immediate
ly after the elevator had started one
of the rlankS which he was handling
struck on some projection, it is
claimed, and as result it was thrown
on young Satiord's right foot in such
way that the bone in the big toe
and the two toes following We're frac-
tured and crushed quite badly.
These facts are conceded by both
parties but in the opening address
of the plaintiffs counsel, Mr. William
son claims that the company knew the
dangerousneSS of carrying the plankS
on the elevator and that they had not
given the plaintiff any warning as to
| the fact that the company had not
given the boy any directions as to
how the planks We're to be transport
| ed on-~the elevator and that the de-
Tending company knew that the plank
could be carried only one special way
on the elevator.
After the description of the case to
the jury by Mr.. Williamson, the jury,
III the request Of both parties, was
taken to the State House IN order to
I view the elevator in question and
| facilities for handling the work at
that time After the jury had return
ed to the court room the witnesses
for the plaintiff were administered me
| cath and the testimony Logan
| The first witness called to the stand
WAS the plaintiff himself. George w.
Stafford With the aid of 4 model of the
| elevator and the elevator well, which
were brought into the case. Stafford
gave a lengthy description of the
| case. and he was rigidly examined
| and cross examined by the attorneys.
In his giving of testimony he was
| Obliged to remove his shoe and stock
ing several times in order that the
| iury might closely examine the injured
| foot.
|
| Slehan. who testified as an expert
| machinist and elevator reDairer. Mr..
| Sknhan on examination gave measure
| ments and technicalities concerning
| the usage of such an elevator as useu
Nv the plaintiff when injured
| DIS. johnson and Harris were cai'e"
as medical experts and describe" '"'
| physical condition of the injured lo".'
also the foot as portrayed on the sh-
| aprapb or X-ray photographs as taken
| by Or. Lamb of Portland.
| The remaining witness for the plain
| tiff. Charles Stafford. father OF tlie
| plaintiff, Mrs. Charles Stafford. mother
| Of the plaintiff, Miss Alice Saf1ord. SIS
| ter Of the plaintiff, and Mrs, w. y
| keero, who nursed him when his loo'
| was at it's worst, all gave testimony
| relating to the sufferings of tn" pam
| tiff Immediately following the acci-
| dent.
| The afternoon session of the court
| vas given over to the testimony ana
| case of the defendant company. MT
| Heath in few words stated that there
| was no disagreement as 10 'he re-
| suits or cause Of the accident. but that
the defendant III tIle cdse p"'S" -
claim on the fact that Young Saftoro
had told a different story at the time
OF the accident and that at the time
the rlaintiff had not carried out th'
orders Of his superiors inasmuch as NJ
orders had been given to carry the
plank by way of the elevator. in fac'
no such thing had been attempted be-
fore or since. the company knowing
the danger Of such. Another point
claimed by the defendant company
that although Young Stafford was under
the orders of the Fuller Co, he wa:
assisting a different company when h'
carried the rlanks, because the terra
| Gotta workers We're of an independent
firm that had received a sub-contrac
t. do that part Of the work.
The first witness for the defence wa
| Sherman Troy. superintendent of tn
construction work of the Capitol build
| ing His testimony consisted in til
corohoration of what Mr.. Heath hat
stated.
The next three witnesses were Johl
| Gagnon, foreman of the labOrerS. j
Donahue. timekeeper, and John Pick
en-. all rave testimony relating to tn
place of the accident and to the state
| hn lot do odf