Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-03-15
SUPREME COURT.
TheHi|ton- Harrington Case
Goes TO the Jury.
Expected That Verdict viii be
Rendered, Saturday Morning.
Fridays Testimony Deals Mainly
With Events Prior to Accident.

The case of Hilton VS.. Harrington
was resumed, Friday morning. before
the supreme court
Al the opening of court Attorney
HeseltOn for, the defence outlined his
case TO the jury. stating in a foreible
manner the issues IN the case which he
would attempt TO prove. showing also
the precaution which the defendant.
Washington D. Harrington. had taken.
in the way of putting different locks
on the door of his garage to prevent
the two sons. Ivers and Harold. from
operating the car. The defendant in the
case, Washington d. Harrington, was
the first witness called. and testified as
to the condition of his health in the
past three or four years, stating that
his nearing was particularly bad. and
also that he was suffering from very
bad heart trouble. Witness stated that
Saturday, May 4, 1912, the day before
the accident Harold and Frank Har-
rinton, his two sons, We're engaged in
Washing the car. Sunday morning.
MAY s, witness testified that the car
was taken out of the garage unbe-
known to him and that from the fact a
little 5-year-old child, son of Harold
Harrington, had gone with his father
at Che time the automobile was taken
from the garage, he worried great
deal as to the safety of the little fell
low. on account of the poor hearing
of the defendant the testimony which
he. gave in his deposition at the office
Of his counsel in Gardiner was subJec-
to changes.
Witness further testified that after
tho accident Frank Harrington secufei
a license to drive the car.
Ivcrs Harrington was next called.
Witness stated that he was 33 years OF
age and had been married twice, ard
Mt present was residing in Gardner
occupying q position as book-keepef IN
his fathers coal office. Acknowledged
| that he had been accustomed to drink
| ing quite heavily in the past, ana that
on the morning of the accident ana III
fact the entire day of May was TO a
oerts,n extent under the influence OF
| liquor.
Nav Harrington. divorced wife OF
Harold Harrington, was the next VIII
! ness called. She stated that on seVerai
| occa sions she had heard Washington
! Harrington forbid his sons from using
the car on account of their habits; tna'
she had ridden in the. car at one time
in company with her husband ana
| others.
| Harold Harrington was then called
His testimony as to what took place.
before the accident and in regard U
his beine forbidden by his father to use
| the car was in q large degree the same
/ as the proceeding witnesses. witness
/ was Subjected to a rigid eross-eXai'li
nation by Attorney Maher for thf
ulaintfff, and@several times was .sllslitr
| " twisted in his testimony,
/ Mrs. Ivers Harrington was CAMEO
unon to tell what she knew about the
facts leading up to the time Oh the az
ciaapt her story resembling in solns
respects that of Mrs. Harold Harrihton
| f.. w. Patterson, driver oil Goa
team for the plaintiff, testihed as 10
seeing Ivers and Harold take the ear
from the garage early in the mornlns
of Nav 5th, as he was in the stabie
caring for his horses.
| Washington Harrington was recalled
| for moment Question by Attorney
| Heseltcn: did you let the Republican
| CLUB of Gardiner have your machine
the night of the rally held previous 70
the September election in 1911, and
was your son. Harold, driving your
car on that OCCASION" A. mo"
After brief cross examination by
Attorney Maher the defence rested.
/ Attorney Heseltons plea, although
short was to the point. and an impress
sve one, occupying about one half OF
an hour. Then came Attorney Maher
argument, which was given before the
jury in clear, concise manner, II
which the attorney stated that rather
than discoura ging his sons in operating
the car, the defendant had encouraged
Them by allowing them to operate th'
car, accompanied by himself; that he
the defendant, knew when he purchas
ed the car he would be unable to drive
it, therefore necessitating one of thu
Sons TO act as "A chauffeur.
Justice Spear then charged the jury
after which the members of the pane
retired. Nc verdict was reached a
1 ,rt