Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-10-11
suffering from neuritis. That disease

suffering from neurtis. That disease
is admittedly serious.
There was evidence sufficient TO
justify the jury in finding, that prior
to the accident the plaintiff thought
she was, and that she appeared to her
family and friends 10 be, a well and
strong person; that since the aeci-
lent which happened more than three
years and a half before the trial, she
has been practically an invalid. has
suffered much pain in her right
shoulder and arm, and has had practi-
cally no use of that arm.
All the physicians agree that the
plaintiff is now suffering from a condi-
cord. 1t appears from the testimony
that such condition may be the re
suit of some previous disease. or of eH-s
posure to cold and hard work,or of ar
injury. anG that it develops more COM
monty after middle life. In the absence
in this case, of any evidence Of pre-
vious disease, or of such exposure and
hard work. as might have caused 1t.
her physicians We're inclined to the
opinion that it may he the result Of her
injuries But Dr. Chase testified thai
when he examined the plaintiff N No
vember 1909, about a month after her
injuries, he found clear evidence that
she was then suffering from hardening
Of the spinal cord, and that IT must
have had its origin hong before the
time of her injuries, because 1t de-
velops slowly, and we think the weight
of the medical testimony is. that, as
suming the plaintiff showed clear
symptoms Of hardening of the cord iii
November 1909. the disease probably
had it's origin prior to the accident
Notwithstanding the plaintiff herself
perfectly healthy.
We do not think, however. that the
determination of the question whether
the amount Of the damages AWARDED
the plaintiff was excessive necessarily
depends on whether the evidence would
Justify the conclusion that the eardeh-
ing of the spiral cord from winch she.
is suffering had its inception as the re-
sult If her injuries on September H.
1909. If that disease. though una1s-
covered. was existing or developing
before the accident, it may have been.
and probably was, accelerated III Us
DEVELOPMENT and progress On afcosh'
of the accident and the injuries re-
shifting to the plaintiff from 1t.
The pIaiutiff is now in serious ant
unite helpless and hopeless eondltion
and who can determine precisely to
what extent that condition IS not the
result of the accident to her CT sep
IN that the DnSSI-
clans disagreed
It was for the jury 10 deteriuihc ~
amount of compensation the pia'iitiii
was entitled - as the damages fesatF-
ing to her from aer injuries me WI
dict less the interest, accordIhS W NV
Communication of the defendant d.
tornev. would be s3,4SI.l3. That repre-
cents the judgment of the jury as 10
tha amount of the damages the plant
Ter sustained on account OF her injuries,
We have examined and conslacrcu
the evidence with care ana are KY
convinced that that amount IS SO mai
:feet,v excessive that it oueht 40. W
bo permitted to stand. Accordingly y
10 tho opinion of the court that the mo-
zion should be overruied'
,,he entry will therefore be
Motion overruled.
r,,contions overruled if within thir,s
1o,.e after the rescript Of this decision
:, slad tine plairtiff RENTS all Oh ,he
rerdict in excess Of s3,4S7.1a; otherwise
exceptions sustained.
iced october 5th, 1878
State of Maine, Androseoggin eouh-
~. Benjainin f. Warner VS.. Name
Contra, r. Il. Co: George 4. Warner
VS.. s;ai1e Central r. r. Co.
Rescript, King }.
The rule governing the admission OF
declarations of an agent as evidence
against his principal is founded upon
the idea of the legal identity OF the
agent and the principal. which pre-
supposes authority from the principal
To the agent to make the declaraticns.
That authority may be expressly CIV
on. as. to make some specific declara-
ton. or it may be derived by impliea-
tion from authority given to the agent
to do a certain act for the principal.
in the doing IF which the declaration
is made.
WhPfe tD1S authority IL dtftHcd ny
implication from authority to Go a
certain act, the declaration of the
agent to he admissible must have been
made as a part of the res gestae. in
other words. must have been made by
the agent at the time of the transac-
tion. either, while he was actually en-
gagged in the performance Of the act,
,or so soon after as to be in reality a
part of the transaction.
In a letter from a station agent of
the defendant company, to its Vice
President and Gen'l Manager. dated
Oct. 18th, 1912, reporting q fire tliat DC
CURED at COS P. NJ. of the previous
day. and which destroyed the plaiiat-
ifs property. there was the following
statement:
eFrom appearances and past circum-
stances of the same kind when the
station buildings were catching fire
frequently, | am safe in saying that
FIX. sos set the roof of Mr. Warmers
barn on fire.
Held:
/. In writing this letter, the next day