Norwich bulletin., 1914-11-25
AUTOMOBILE DAMAGE SUIT &
 BEFORE SUPERIOR COURT
Evidence All Presented in Case of |
 Wall Vs. MondeIci.

In the superior court here on Tues day morning, when the court came in with Judge Howard J. Curtis presid- ing, the arguments were made in the suit of Wilfred F. Brown of Old Mys- tic against John F.. Hart, trustee, which was suit over MT. Browns claim that MT. Hart had broken a contract by not allowing him to buy piece of property on which he had lease. Attorney B. H. Hewitt made the argument for the plaintiff and At torney Abel P. Tanner for the defend- ant. Judge Curtis took the papers.
 Wall vs. MondeIei.
 Then the continuation of the trial of the case of Daniel Wall and wife of New London against Giuseppe Mon delci of New London was taken up.
 MT. Wall is suing for s5.o00 damages for injuries received by his wife on last Labor day when the buggy they were driving in was struck from be- hind by the automobile driven by Mon-
 delci The accident happened on the
 Norwich to New London turnpike a short distance south of the Uncasville station of the trolley company.
 Attorney J. c. Geary concluded the direct evidence for the plaintiff Tues day morning by putting on the stand Claude B. Kenyon, William c. Val
 lette and Walter F. Calvert. The plaintiff rested at a few minutes after noon.
 After the noon recess of court, At
 torney Frank L. Mcclure, of Hull, McGuire and Hull, began the defend ants side of the case. Robert Gfas- brenner, who arrived at the scene of
 the accident soon after it took place, was the first witness.
 The defendant. MT. Mondelci, who was driving the automobile at the
 time of the accident. was the second witness
 His testimony was that he was driving slowly, probably at the rate of from 12 to 15 miles an hour. He
 had taken about half an hour to come from Norwich, he said. The automo-
 bile he was using was a. second hand
 car three or four years old and he
 had come up the grade on second
 speed and had just shifted to first speed before the accident happened. He claimed that just before he struck the buggy which contained the Wall family he was blinded by the
 bright headlight of either an auto
 mobile or a trolley car approaching from the opposite direction. It was his testimony that when he first saw the Wall wagon it was on the left side of the road close to the trolley track and that he at once steered so
 as to swing onto the trolley tracks and around the wagon to the left, but that as he turned the automobile
 into the trolley tracks the left forward wheel struck hole that was deep enough to swing the automobile back
 towards the wagon and the right hand front wheel of the automobile struck and demolished the buggy. He said
 he stopped the machine within two
 or three feet beyond the buggy MT Mondelci also testified as to what he | did in the way of helping the people
 in the Wall carriage after it had been struck.
 pr. Carlisle F. Perrin of New Lon don and Dr. Morton E. Fox of Mont vile testified to the extent of the in- juries suffered by the people in the
 wagon.
 Bartolucci and Joseph Andrew Lede who were in the Mondeici automobile, all gave testimony that covered the points as to the speed of the ma chine, the circumstances immediate 1 ly at the time of the accident and l offering to help or helping the Wall family.
 These witnesses and MT. Mondelci claimed that there was no light on 1 the Wall carriage.
 Judge Curtis had court continue un- | til o'clock and by that time Attorney Mcclure said he rested for the de- fense. Attorney Geary said he had some witnesses in rebuttal, but the judge decided to adjourn court till the ! next morning at 10 o'clock. After the witnesses in rebuttal the arguments will be made.
 In Fenton Building Go. Matter. When court opened in the morning, l Attorney c. V. James presented the
 matter of James F. Fenton and others vs. the Fenton uildlng Go. It was in the form of a. motion to vacate me-
 chanics liens placed on the new high
 school in willimantic and the addition to the Storrs Agricultural college. As | testimony was to be introduced and I the matter might take some time Judge I Curtis said he would hear the case on Dec. ' at il a. m.