Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1910-04-29
HARTleAN AWARDED DAMAGES.
Won Sharp Contest in Wndham County
court-case viii GO to Supreme
court-Llst Of Divorces Granted.


Court-Llst Of Divorces Granted.
At the conclusion of the Larrow- Doo-
little case in county court in Newfane
Friday morning a jury was impaneled in
the case of John Hartigan of Woodstock,
N H., against the Deerfeld Lumber COM
pany of Wilmington. This case occupied
the time of the court until Wednesday
afternoon, when it was given to the jury
about 3.45 o'clock. 1t was a hard-fought
battle, with many law questions involved.
The plaintiff claimed he was in the en-
ploy of the Deerfield Lumber company
in Wilmington running a planning ma
chine, that on the day on which he was
hurt he went from his machine and was
gone some 10 or Is minutes that when
he returned he fell over some boards
which had been placed in front of his
planer, and stuck his right hand into
the rolls of the planer, that he pulled
the lever which controls the rolls, but
without effect, and that he made an i'm
mediate outcry and instantly several
men ran to his rescue, one Of them
throwing off the belt which stopped the
rolls. The plaintiff also introduced Dr.
{. s. Pratt Of Brattleboro as a medical
expert, who described Hartigan's injuries
and the chances of permanent recovery
and whose testimony showed that the
hand was injured and the ligaments of
the shoulder were strained. Evidence of
the plaintiff also tended to show that the
lever which he pulled was out of repair
and not in working order
The defendants evidence tended to show
that the lever which he pulled should
have been pushed in the opposite drec-
ton to stop the rollers. Co-workers and
acquaintances who saw Hartigan and
talked with him soon after the accident
testified that Hartlgan told them that
he was brushing shavings from the
planer and that his hand was caught in
that way. DR.. l. T. Page of Wilmington,
the attending physician and a witness for
the defendant examined Hartigan before
the jury and testified that Hartigan, in
large degree, had made a recovery and
I that he would not have a permanent
injury which would materially deprive
hHn Of the service of his right hand and
arm Hartigan stated that he recently
has been working in Woodstock, N. H.,
running a planning machine, receiving
Sl.75 a day of 10 hours for his services.
At the time of his injury he was receiv-
| ing S2.00 a day Of IL hours.
The jury was out from 3.45 o'clock
until Ills in the evening, when they
sealed their verdict and brought it into
court yesterday morning. Evidently it
was compromise verdict and IL was
for the plaintiff to recover $5S3 damages.
Without doubt this case will go to the
supreme court on exceptions. II. G. &
F. E. Barber appeared for the plaintiff
| and c. C. Fits and II. e. Eddy appeared
for the defendant
Yesterday afternoon a jury was i'm
paneled in the case of George II. Hall OF
Westminster against Edgar w. Royce,
now of Ludlow. This is an action to re-
cover the balance on a sale of logs to
| the defendant when he had his mill at
| Westminster Payment of $50 in advance
was made by Mr.. Royce at the time the
| logs were bought, and the issue is a claim
TO recover back a portion of the $3.50 on
| the ground that there were not sufficient
| logs to cover that amount. The plaintiff
| claimed to have sold the logs by the cord,
the plaintiffs and defendants evidence
| being in conflict as to the amount.
| Divorces have been granted in the
cases Of Jay c. Hayes OF wardsboro
! against Minnie Hayes for wilful deser-
| ton and a statutory offense; Ada e
| Bruce of Brattleboro against Harry Bruce
| for neglect and refusal to support: Mil
| dred T. Porter Of Rockingham against
| Marsall Porter for wilful desertion
neglect and refusal to support; Myrtle
| Rider Hescock of Wilmington against
| Claude Hescock for intolerable severity,
| neglect and refusal to support
Archie st. Peters pleaded guilty Of
attempt TO break jail and larceny, but
the court has not passed upon the matter