Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-10-16
Verdict for Defendant The
Harrison VS.. Bellows Case.
|DudIsy VS., R. P. Hazard Co. Is
Commenced Three Witnesses.
Case viii Take Up Greater Part Of
Thursdays Session.

prene court in which the plaintiff
sought to recover $4,000 from the de-
PENDANT for alternating his wifes af
fections was resumed, Wednesday. AS
all Of the evidence on both sides was
finished, Tuesday night, Attorney Per-
liins for the defence began his argu-
ment at the opening of court His
argument, although not lengthy, was
to the point. Clearly and in a force
ful manner he laid down his case to
he jury. As he concluded, Attorney
Claire for the plaintiff commenced his
plea. He had not finished at the time
court took the noon recess. At 2.30 in
the afternoon, Attorney Claire resum-
ed his argument, taking about half
hour. Then came Judge Savages
charge, in which he briefly reviewed
the case, and also save the jurors u
few instructions on the finer points
of the law. At $50, the case was Civ
On To the jury, and after celebrating
for As minutes a verdict for the de-
PENDANT was reached.
The next ease called on the docket
was that Of Charles H. Dudley of Hal
lowell vs.. r. p. Hazard Shoe Co. OF
Iei diiiti, III NiifNii ilit IitiilitIil, Ipdu7
ley, is seeking to recover damages for
injuries received by having an eye put
out While in the employ of the com
pany, in the year 1912. Judge Bene
diet +. Maher appeared for the plain
tiff. while Morey K McGuilicuddy of
Lewiston conducted the case for the
defendants.
According To Attorney Maher, in
his opening Of the case, Dudley was,
at the time of the accident, working
in the lasting room in the basement,
sorting lasts. The lasts We're sent
down from the third floor of the shop
by means of a chute, Dudleys bust
ness was to remove the lasts from
the box at the lower end of the chute
and sort them in the proper manner
According to attorney for plaintiff, the
chute at different times became plug
ged. as he termed it. making it neces-
sary fer a leag rod to be placed in
the upper end, to clear the passage
way. The rod used was in ; joints
put together by coupling one end over
the other. the threads on the ends of
the rod had become worn SO that they
would not hold together, and on the
particular occasion when Dudley is
said To have received the injury, a
portion OF the rod came down the
chute and struck MIN in the eye later
resulting in the nece ssity Of having
the eye removed. Dudley not only lost
his eye. but the accident resulted II
making him wreck physically, and
that he has not been able since to do
amy work to speak of.
Archie G. Norcross, who made !,
plan of the basement and the chute in
question. was the FIST witness called
by the plaintiffs attorney. He was
questioned at some length, both in di-
rect and cross Xamination, in regard
To the measurements of the chute and
The distance from the floor that the
lower end was, also the general meas
,rtm ents of the different parts as de-
lneated on the plan.
Charles II. Dudley. the plaintiff in
the case, was the next witness to take
the stand. Witness stated that he
was 81 years Of age AT the time of the
accident, and thai since he was in
jured he had not been able to do any
work. 1szox
II was a common occurrence for the
chute 10 get plugged, and then when
this happened it was the custom To
remedy il by taking off an elbow at
the lower end of the chute or means
of the rod. as heretofore stated The
morning that the accident happened
the chute became plugged and Fore
man Turner was notified of the fact
nv Mr. En1leG l.as,,. i,,tr - .l,a
fact Mr.. Turner ordered the plaintiff
to light match at the lower end of
the chute. at the same time Turner
WAS thrusting the rod down the chute
from the third floor. According to the
witness the threads on the ends of the
rod were in such a Worn state that one
of the joints came apart shot down
the chute with great rapidity and
struck him in the eye. Witness pulled |
the rod out of his eye. and before he |
could sit down, he fell. Medical aid |
was summoned and the wound dress
ed. Witness further stated that he |
had been constantly under the care
of physician. and that his health |
was very poor as the result of the |
accident. Mr. Dudley vas subjected to |
4 severe ross-examination by Attor-
ney Morey, being closely questioned in
regard to the plugging of the chute,
and the manner used to get over the
difficulty. The worn condition of the |
ODDS was quite deeply gone into, a hot
argument taking place between wit
ness and Attorney Morey. Mr.. Dud-
ey's occupation was on the river drive
>eing employed at the Hazard Cos
actory, winters, a position merely to
i'll in, as he termed ii. Witness stat
ID that he had been on the river two
umn1ers since the accident happened,
'ut was not able to do any work.
However, he drew his salary Just the
anne.
Archie Rowley, who, at the time of
he accident, vas employed on the
bird floor. engaged in putting the
asts down the chute was the next
witness called. His testimony was in
large degree Confederation of that
f the plaintiff. At the conclusion of
,ttorney MoreN's cross examination of
he Witness court adjourned until $50
!. NJ. Thursday.
General John A. Harper, State pen
ion clerk returned on "Wednesday | {