Gloucester County Democrat., 1912-02-22

department. ekdIulueu tiS mdciA1S,
and he heard nothing more from him.
offered to pay damage if Hughes
would prove that he caused it.
Mr.. Davis put MIR. Helms through
severe cross examination as to al
direct testimony, particularly as -
the marks on the machine He said
also that he did not know at the
time that it was Hunter who passc ]
him on the road
Edward Vandersloot gave testimony
as to the facts related by the other
witnesses.
Miss Messick, who makes her honAe
with Mrs. Helms, stated that she was
in the auto the night of the acciden-;
saw an auto pass them going pretty
fast; they did not run into wagon.
She did not tell Miss Gleason not 10
tell that there was a collision. She
was friendly then with Miss Gleascn,
but not now.
Mr.. Shoemaker saw wagon spokes
in the road and took them to his farm,
afterward he gave them to Mr.. Helms
who asked for them.
Dr. Reading, of Woodbury., said LIE
had examined Mrs. Hughes twice;
found her condition almost as testified
to by other witnesses, differing in
matter of slight astigmatism of tn
eye, which he said might pr0da 3
headache, explaining that slight
astigmatism is more apt to prod,icc
headache than more advanced case
Is. The doctor was under severe
,fx.n wi ff.r.
srme time.
DR.. Pounds and DR.. Buzby testified
to the ondition of Mrs. Hughes, hav-
ing examined her soon after the ac-
cident and recently.
Miss Elkins, of Mickleton, photo
graphed the part of the road where
the accident occurred, and the photo
graphs were allowed as evidence after
objections by counsel for plaintiff.
Clark Helms was recalled to ex-
plain the location where photos were
taken as Miss Elkins was not familiar
with the road
A ripple of merriment went around
the room when the name of William
Hyers was called. Mr.. Hyers was
one of two young men and two young
ladies who were all in the same bug
gy at the same time, and the first to
arrive at the place of the accident.
Mr.. Ayers told about his arriving
there, finding Mrs Hughes bruised
and injured and when the colored man
Wesley and his wife came along he.
Ayers and party, went on toward
Bridgeport.
Mr.. Easterly, the other member of
the quartette gave about the same
testimony, except that he got out of
the buggy and struck a match to see
how serious the injuries of Mrs.
Hughes were.
Miss Pertle, of the quartette re-
membered seeing two autos that pass
ed them, and Miss Monahan who was
in the buggy, say two autos, but did
not see either of them stop; she
wasn't looking that way-wasn't look
ing at anything outside the buggy.
Chas. Pedegee, inspector of motor
court.
Mr. Franklin, of Repaupo,s saw a
horse running away and afterward
learned of the accident; heard Mr..
Hughes say nothing hit him.
Samuel Eansin & was asked about a
light on Hughes wagon; heard him
say he had no light.
Harry Sparks examined Mr. Helms
auto carefully two days after acci-
dent and saw no marks on the car
Samuel B. Gaskill, OF Swedesbor,,,
was talking to Mr.. Hughes; he SAID
Clark Helms ran into him and ae,er-
ward said he didn't know who did it.
He heard Miss Gleason say, there
was no collision but heard somebody
hallow
Mrs Mary Lansing saw Mr.. Helms
in Bridgeport the night of the acct
dent, he stopped at his mothers.
Chas. Lansing testified as to the
time Mr.. Helms was in Bridgeport
on September 7th
Mrs Resner went to Mrs. Hughes
house the time Mr.. Hughes father
was lying dead. She said she saw
Mrs. Hughes with her head bandaged
Mrs. Hughes said she had one of her.
headaches.
Mrs. Drew was called in rebuttal of
a statement of witness relative to
the accident.
Mrs. Helms, wife of defendant, said
she was in the hospital in Philadel-
phia. Mr.. Helms called over the
phone; the nurse answered the call;
id not know exact time. Miss Glea-
son told her there was no collision,
but she heard some one hallow.
Mr.. Shute took the undertaken to
the Hughes home, but did not notice
Mrs. Hughes condition.
Mr.. Titus said he examined Mr..
Helms auto-saw scar across 1t
2 1-2 inches wide on the battery cap,
and dent which may have been one
fourth of an inch deep. Mr.. Watkins
asked about the position of the mud
guards and running board on Mr..
Helms machine
This closed the testimony, and the
lawyers at once began the summing
up of the evidence, which was
strong array of argument, both for
and against. Rev. John Davis was
first to argue the case, ably setting
before the Jury the reasons for ver-