The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1914-01-16
TRYING TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE.
In Failure to Put Guard Rail in Culvert
Where Horse Was Killed.

In supreme court yesterday, the Wash
ington county case OF state VS.. 7. w
Perkins, Christmas tree dealer, was
passed up on briefs, and the Windham
county case of Warren w. Sevious, adj
ministrator, VS.. the Rutland Railroad
company was continued.
Arguments having been concluded in
the Orleans county case of II. ID. Stan
nard VS.. NJ. J.. and II. w. Tillotson, as
sumpsit, the next taken up was the
Orleans county case Of Charles Maynard
vs. Town OF Waitsiield This is suit for
damages alleged to have been received
by the plaintiffs horse because of the
lack of railing on culvert in the
town of Westfield. The attorney for the
defendant stated that the culvert was on
piece of state road built in 1909, one
OF the best in that part Of the country
and in perfect repair. The culyert also
was in perfect condition, except, perhaps,
in the lack OF a railing. The plaintiff,
Mr.. Maynard, was driving along this
road, with his wife, and was leading
another horse. As they approached the
culyert, an automobile was standing on
the further side and a milk team
passed the auto before Mr. Maynard.
When he reached it, the horse he was
driving SHE'D, frightening the one he was
leading, and the latter jumped over the
hind wheel Of the vehicle, over the side
OF the culyert, caught its feet ON the
bank wall and injured itself so it had to
be killed. The plaintiff alleged all this
might have been prevented ii the culvert
had had guard rail He was awarded
a special verdict of S236.67 damages in
the lower court.
Attorney Young, for the defendant,
asserted the road and culvert were built
under direction of the state highway
and county highway COM
that it was satisfactory and
by them and therefore the
town was not liable for the accident
and the driver was guilty of contribu-
tory negligence.
Attorney F. S. Rogers maintained that
the town was negligent in not having a
guard rail placed on the culvert, insist
ing that had there been one there no
trouble would have occurred. Attorney
John W. Redmond, also for the plaintiff,
claimed that a guard rail should have
been placed on the eulvert, asserting
that, even if it had not been strong
enough to have held the weight of the
horse, it wo;Ild have warned the horse
ind it would probably have jumped the
,ther way; also that the driver showed
10 contrihutory negligence, as claimed
1y the defendant, as team had just
passed safely in front of him. the auto
mobile was not moving and he had no
eason to expect any accident to result |
rom driving past.
The case OF George L. Hunt vs. Ad
lie B. Davis ct al, was taken up yester-
lay afternoon. This is an appeal in |
hancery by the defendants from de-
rec in favor OF the orator. The case in |
olives the right of the orator to be sub |
ogated to the rights of the defendants |
n certain mortgage, for the redemp- |
ion of which the orator advanced |
money in behalf of the defendant, Addie |
3. Davis, under an agreement that he I
hould have security therefor. The de-
endants claim there was no agreement /
etween the oratir and Addie B. Davis /
or subrogation, but merely an agree
lent that she would at some later time.
i've him mortgage on the property
S security for the loan.