Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-10-17
Sealed Verdict Reached in
DudIeyvs. HazzardCass.
Case Consumes Greater Portion
OF Thursdays Session.
Blair VS.. l., 4. & ". Street Railway
Opens In the Afternoon.

| Charles II. Dudley of Hallowell vs..
| X +. Hazard Co. of Gardiner, in
| which the plaintiff is seeking seeever
damages for personal injury, was re-
| sumed
l. Miss Agnes Novel; was the first
witness called for the plaintiff. Wit
ness testified that she was in the en-
| ploy of the Hazard Co. at the
| time of the accident. The cross-eNam-
| nation was very brief. Miss Kate
| Novel; was the next witness to take
the stand. She was also working for
the r. z. Hazard Co at the time of
| the accident, and was near Dudley.
when he was injured. Her testimony
corroborated for the most part that of
| her sister.
| DR. oliver W. Turner of Augusta
| was next called. He testified as to
| treating the injury to piaint1ff's eye
| and also related the conditions dis
| covered, in some detail. Witness tes-
| titled that it was necessary To remove
the injured eye and that he was as
sisted in the operation by DR.. Austin
of Wateryille DR.. Turner stated that
a peculiar posture of Dadley's head
was due TO the injury to the eye. Wit
ness stated that Dudley was totally
! blind for the time. DIR. Turner was
| unable to state the exact number OF
times that he treated Dudley, but
| thought he saw him at least three
times a week Attorney Maher then
| ca He'd DR.. r. p Smons of Gardner
Witness described in detail the CON
dition of Dudley, both at the time OF
the accident and at other times FOL
i lowing the accident. Witness stated
thai he was the first to treat Dudley
az the result of the accident Witness
Thought that a fair price for Ibis pro-
fessionaI services would be about sso.
Cross cxa Yssination was very briel.
DIR w. Fl. Harris of Augusta was
next called. Witness was askea
whether or not the expectancy OF life
at 81, the age of plaintif, was -
wears. and a fraction, answer was Ill
the affirmative.
DIR Fl. ]. Frederick of Augusta was
the next called by Attorney Manner.
Witness testified as to making an
examina ton of Dudley in consultation
with Drs Harris. Turner. Mliiiken anu
Si,nons. Witness testified that ne
wonld expect continued improve
mont in Dudley,s condition.
When Attorney Morey opened ms
cross-examination, lively DEBATE en-
srea between he and witness WheH.
the attorney for the defehee COM
menced TO discuss conditions famiiiar
in their fullest sense to eye special
ists only. DR.. Fredericks replied re-
peatedly to the volley of spicy ques-
~, l,x- Gau wing that he
was not an eye specialist.
DIR. Milliken of Hallowell was then
called. Witness testimony was a cor
rotoration. in a large degree, to that
of the proceeding physicians.
Mrs. Della Williams, sister OF plain
tiff. was called She was asked but a
few questions. Witness stated that
Dudley was a physical wreck and had
been since the accident occurred. j..
w. Williams husband of Mrs. Will
Jams, was then called. brief exam
ination ensued and then the plaintiff.
Dudley. was recalled by Attorney
Maher. Witness was asked if he had
been in the basement and viewed the
surroundings where the accident took
place since he was injured. He re-.
piled that he was in the building of
the r. p Hazard Co. Saturday, last,
At this point the counsel for the
plaintiff rested then case.
Attorney Morey wished to address
the court in the absence of the jury,
and a recess of 10 minutes was TAKEN
At 1115 A. NJ, Attorney Morey for
the defence opened his case.
John Fl. Thompson of Gardiner was
the first witness called by the defence.
He stated that he was superintendent
of the r. p. Hazard Co. In direct
examina ton witness was questioned
at some length In regard to the chute
running from the third floor to the
basement and through which the rod
came that struck Dudley in the eye.
| The fiye-joint rod that was used to
| free the chute from lasts when it ne
| came plugged. was then produced.
| Witness Joined together two joints of
| the rod and declared that the threads
Were in good condition.
| Witness denied that plaintiff. Dudley
| had ever told him that the threads on
the ends of the rod were in a worn con-
dition. Witness had never known of the
rod coming apart previous to the time
that Dudley was injured.
| Attorney Maher then conducted the
cross-examination. Picking up the coil
| he asked: ''Is this not the same rod yor
have Just Joined together?"
Yes, sir"
do you consider the threads on the
| rod in good condition.
/ Yes, sir, | do"
Those are in good condition, ar,
they?"
| Eyes, sir, / consider them So
What did you Immediately do as sool
as you learned of the ACCIDENT"
Il got busy with a DOCTOR
Did you go. yourself, with Dudley t
the physicians offiee?'
NO. sir. / sent Turner, the foreman
with him."
The sections of the rod were again re
, / ferred to.
did you go upstairs after the rod afte
I the accident?'
. Il wasf one of a party that went up
i who brought the rod down stairs?"
IT do not know"
: ut is true, is it not, that there ar
other rods in the building besides the on