Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1911-03-21

?
fair attendance of the attorneys OF 10
county, and a few from other counties
Following the formal preliminarles Il
the term the grand jury was called, an
fifteen of the members responded :
their names. Having been empanele
and instructed in October, they were i'm
mediate civ excused from the court roof
to attend to their duties in their ow
room.
The traverse juries we're then empane
ed as follows:
| FIRST JURY.
MN. Hamlin, Waterford, Foreman.
Cullen Abbott. Woodstock.
Howard o. Coy, Oxford.
lab, W. Dunn, Hartford.
Frank Harmon, Lowell.
T. G. Larry, Gilead.
Frank McAllister, Stoneham.
william l.. Paul. Dixfeld.
| G. II. Rankin, Hiram.
c. F. Tripp, Canton.
/ Clarence W. Shaw, Buckfeld.
Walter L. WEIGH, Mexico.
SECOND JURY.
John E. Stephens, Rumford, Foreman.
Samuel n. Adams, Brown6eld.
| George Allen. Hebron.
Edwin A. Barker, Bethel.
Donald Fl. Bean. Paris.
Elton L. Durham. Greenwood.
L. L. Kimball, Albany.
Arthur F. Morrill,, Norway.
1 Clarence G. Morton, Pdris>
Merritt II. OF iham, Peru.
| Herbert II. Ridlon, Porter.
| Elmer II. Youug. Bethel.
sUPERNUMERARIEs.
| c. Augustus Bonney, Sumner.
ID. j. Mccoy, Rumford.
Simon f. Tbbetts, Denmark.
W. II. Kilgore of Waterford is the
deputy sheriff in charge Of the grand
| Jury, and John Briggs of Canton ano
George F. Needham of Hebron Station
are the other two deputies in attend
ance, besides the jailer and the crier.
The call of the docket resulted in tie
shortest trial list in any term for some
time, and the assignments for trial were
all made for the first week. Nothing
was ready for trial on the first day.
ROWE VS.. HILL LUMBER CO.
After the arrival of the train Wednes
day morning, work began on the case Of
Wesley P. Rowe VS.. Hill Lumber Manu-.
featuring Co. All the parties are OF
Brownfield, the defendant company be-
ing an organized corporation managed
by Charles E. Hill, operating a lumber
mill in that town.
This suit was brought to recover dam.
ages for an injury sustained by Rowe
while working in the Hill mill. Rowe
began work in October, 1908, being at
FIRST employed as carpenter engaged on
the work of finishing the mill, which
was a new one. He also occasionally
worked at something else about the mill
On the goth of April, 1909, by direc
ton of the foreman, Rowe and man
named McLucas went to cutting shinge
bolts from the log on what is known as
a swing saw, which is hinged above and
pulls out toward the operator, the table
remaining stationary. Rowe went to
working the saw, while McLucas hand
led the other end of the log. The scarf
end of the first log, a small one, was
squared, and when the saw was pulled
out to cut off the first bolt, it went into
Rowe's right foot on the inside Of the
instep, going in about two inches ano
cutting the foot about half in two.
Rowe was taken to the Maine Genera
Hospital in Portland, where he remain
ed three weeks. He was confined t
crutches for some months longer, anC
his foot 10 yet tender and he is some
that lame, though the surgeons in their
statement say that he will eventually
have fairly disable foot.
The hinge of the case Is, what hap
pened at the time of the accident, thai
is, how did it happen, and was the saw
defective in construction? The position
OF the plaintiff is that Rowe had little
knowledge of the saw, having never be
fore worked at it except for a short time
on two occasions to saw few slabs, anc
never having been warned of it's danger
that he pulled the saw forward, anc
when about half through the small log
it bound and jumped forward, breaking
the unsawed part Of the log, and caugh
Rowe's trousers leg and foot, which
were beyond the edge Of the saw table
and pulled them In. There was testi
mony that the saw struck piece of iroi
in the saw table so as to break the tip
from some of the teeth and stop the saw
There was nothing on the saw frame
except the belt striking cross piece t.
prevent the saw from coming out farthe
than was necessary to cut the logs, ant
it is the contention of the plaintiff tina
the accident happened because of tn
improper construction Of the saw, il
that it was not properly checked from
coming out, and that it "wabbled," 8,
as to bind in the stick and jump.
| On the other hand, the position Of tn
defence is that the accident was due en-
tirely to the carelessness of the operator
that he stood with his foot In line will
the oncoming saw, and that when tn
saw went through the small log wit
little effort, and he was still pulling o
the lever which brings the saw forward
the saw was uuavoidably brought againi
his foot.
| Hon. James S. Wright conducted tn
case for the plaintiff, and E. E. Tasting,
Esq, was associated with him. F. '
Matthews of Portland conducted tn
case for the defence.
This case was given to the jury littl
after 10 o'clock Thursday. The jur
, was allowed to go to Moulton's restar
rant for dinner, but with the exceptio
, of that time was out until after o'cloc
, in the afternoon, when 1t returned We
dict for the plaintiff of 5000.
HAyFoRD VS.. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATOR
Immediately after the Rowe-Hill cas
had gone to the jury, work began on tt
case, William P. Hayford VS.. Werner T
Davis, administrator Of the estate I
r Alonzo F. Cox. Mr.. Hayford lives
t Hartford. This suit was brought fl
, board and care for Mr.. Cox during IL
, last forty-one weeks of bis life. NJ
D Cox, who had no near relatives, was
' Mr.. Hayford's, and was afflicted wit
3 asthma and a heart trouble. The d
q fence did not deny that compensate
should be given the Hayford family, b.
: objected to the amount claimed, whit
}, was placed in the writ at $4,000 p
Q week, and the chief controversy was
to the amount of care required by N
! Cox. The jury after being out for
4 short time returned verdict OF $500
S The case will 90 to the law court.
Q Dyer for plaintiff; Tascus Atwood
t Auburn for defendant.
vi M'cRILLIs VS.. TEBBETs.
!: The case of Lulu L. McCrillis of Ruiz
ford W. E. L. Tebbets, formerly spo
!. manufacturer at Locke's Mills, who b
:, died since the suit was brought, was
u the form of an action of trover to recov
for certain spool bars bad by the d
q PENDANT. The question at issue was q
q location OF the line between Lot 81
II AI til ntr,ts t,. Dr.