Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-10-18

mer cottage ct Lake Cebbeaseeeont4e.
where Thomas Blair was accustomed
TO come on outings. Witness never
saw Blair drink iii his life
Frank Butler testified briefly to his
acquaintance with Blair as a fellow
worker. When >oross- examined Wit
| ness related of several times that he
| thought Blair had been absen from
| his work.
At this point the plaintiff rested
Charles g. Wentworth Yves the first
witness called by Attorney Nelson fer
the defence. Witness was formerly in
| charge of the Gardiner liquor agency.
| Ky referring to his liquor sales record
| items ef purchases of liquor by Thomas
| Flair We're found. When under cross
! examination witness stated that he
| had never seen Blair under the influ-
| encc@ Of liquor.
| w s. Dudley. conductor on the LA
~ ". road, was called By Attorney
Nelson. Witness told of indications of
Blair's drinking which he observed
while Rlair was riding en- his ear.
Albert Il. Gardiner, also a conductor
on The road, was the next witness call
ed by the defence. Witness had known
Blair for some "a years. lad seen
him when he thought he had been I'LL
der the influence of liquor. bat never
in helpless condition.
judge ". c. Atkins of the municip-
al court at Gardner was the next wit
ness to testify Witness read an entry
of sentence against Blair for intoXiea-
ton. GA REORGANIZATION witness
admitted that there was but one entry
against Blair. 2s
/ Walter X. Wakefield related of his
observations of Blair while he fNake-
field was a night officer on the Car
diner police force. Blair s&as accns-
toned 10 drinking on thefHiecasion eff
Saturday nights. but was tHsyer quar-
l.relsome.. Here the. defence Tested.
At 1o.30 Attorney Nelson commenced
his argument for the defehte. taking
10 minutes. At this point court took "A
recess for 30 minutes. Then Attorney
Maher commenced his argument, at
the conclusion of which Judge Savage
delivered his charge. The case was
given to Tire jury at f2.45. 'Aeverdict for
the plaintiff for the sum of S223i.6t
was reached, at 3.45 =. NJ.
At the afternoon session the case of
Harold c. Rollins of Nassalhoro VS.. the
Central Maine Power Co, where the
plaintiff brings action for the recovery
of damages by having an eye put cut
at Depot square, Gardner, was com
menced Benedict f. Maher and sam
uel rtcon4b appeared fer Rollins and
Harvey c. Eaton of Watervtlle for the
defence. The case involved the ques-
ton of DANA ges only.
The plaintiff, Rollins, was the first
witness to take the stand,
Witness stated that he was in the
employ of the l., A & ". street Rail
way as conductor at the time of the
accident
/ Witness testified as to having his
eve removed at the Augusta General
hospital by sDrs. Stubs and Beach
That he had been unable to work for
III months after the accident. Then
went to work for the read, again. only
afternoons, Worked three weeks and
had to quit on account of the eye in
jury. Then tried to work again for the
road but had to give up Witness had
suffered much pain since the ascIueh'
and was at present unable to do any
work. Attorney Eaton then conducted
the cross examination.
DR. W. O. Cobb of Gardiner whe
was the first physician that attended
Rollins, Immediately following the ae-
ejdent. was tie next witness to be
called. DIR. cobb testified as To Rol-
Inns being brought to his Office. Inc
eve, upon examination was found te
have a deep cut in the eyepap. Attei
washing the eye antiscPtlcaiiy ana as
pertaining the extent of the injury. Wit
ness stated that he advised Koiilhs u
go to On eye specialist for treatment
DIR. Richard H Stuhhs of Augusta
was then called. Witness testllled d.
to treating Rollins at the ONCE Oh III
Beach The nature of the cut Ill 'h'
eve as described by Dr Copht was COZ
rohorated by witness.
DIR. s. J. Beach was then cahed p9
Attorney Maher Witness testified az
rs treating Rollins several times ana
he WAS assisted by Dr Stuhbs IN urea
ing the eye. Several stitches were tar =
on In the eyelid and cyeball in an en-
4 de.,vnr 10 save the eve, according q
;FHn oAs isifsor 81 sItnrt time theginJufei
i mem lSeeaseemecf to improve, nut s9oi
\
| cjde1 in order to save the sight OF th'
otber eve to remove the injured eye
Tba operation was performed accord
inc to witness by himself and III
stuhbs. The eye was removed and a
the proper time glass eye H''eN
When asked if the whole nervous sss
tom wou,d be affected by the injury
witness thought it would to a certain
extent Attorney Eaton had no aues
tions in cross-examination. Dr. beaei
on direct examination. thought Tor al
estimate $3.50 would be ialf coiiipe'i
sation for his professional services
AT this point the plaintiff rested
Attorney Eaton had no evidence
oTe, for the defence, Bit in n shor
argument he presented1the,ea case TO tn
iura Judge Maher took nan heu
in his argument, following which JUS