Norwich bulletin., 1914-05-27

The hong trial of the t$1s. poo damage suit for, breach of contract brought by Walter o. Whitaker against the Thames River SpeciaHies company ;reached the hands of the jury late Tuesday afternoon in the superior scourt here. After having it under con Sideration about an hour, the jury came in at 5.44 and rannounced through ls.oreman Ashley T. Boon that they had rsct agreed upon verdict, but wanted more instruction. When this had been sylsyen by Judge Milton A Shumway he ezTcused them until the next morning, W hen they will resume dei1beration on tn Q case.
 After the early part of the morning Tu esday occupied in taking the final testimony, the plaintiffs attorneys. J. J. Desmond and Edmund W. Perkins,, ann,ounced at 10.40 a. m- that they were: ready to rest their case. MaJor Hadtai A. Hull and his som rested the case for the defendants at the same, time.
 Attorney Perkins madef the first ar- gumenr for the plaintiff, speaking for 61 minutes. He was followed by Att torney c. Hadlai Hull in an argument, for the, defendants that lasted 55 min utes when the court took a recess un- til o'clock.
 After the noon recess Major Hull occupied 54 minutes with his argu-' ment for the defendant, and Attorney Desmond fused about an hour with his concluding argument for the plarntfn.
 In this~he claimed that the damages the plaintiff claimed were S11,444, fig uring a total due him of SIS. .457 under his contract and employment, with a deduction of $7,013, which included what he had been paid and what he has earned in other employment.
 Judge Shumway at once made his charge to the jury, speaking for about 35 minutes, and putting the case in their hands at 4.24 with the instruc- tions that she should allow them to de- liberate until 5.30. but would excuse them then until the next day II they had not reached a verdict
 In his charge Judge Shumway told the jury that there were four ques- tions of fact for them to consider. He explained each one in the order that they might come up for consideration in reaching a verdict. These four questions, he said, were:
 Was tLe plaintiff a competent ssu- perintendent of paper making of the grade and character he was engaged to SuperinteEsi the making of?
 Was he unsiNlful and careless in his work and wilfully disobeyed the reasonable orders of his employers? l Was the plaintiff concerned in other business than his employers during the term of the contractf
 Was the product of the defend- ants mill defective or unmarketable and was such defect the result of the incompetency or lack Of skill on the part of the plaintiff?
 But the third question. the judge told the jury, was excluded from the case, as no claim on this point had been pressed in the trial. The judge said that proof of incompetency or unskfl-i fulness or of disobedience of orders would all be grounds for lawful dis | charge and told tho twelve men that 1.-the question of competency or incom E potency was the real issue in the case. Judge Shumway went into the ques Ettion of the assessment of damages in lease verdict were found for the ltplaintiff explaining the law that GOV | cred such a case, which entitled the il plaintiff to his wages from the time of 1.-the discharge up to the time of the Iiexpiration of the contract in October, If1915, less the value of his time to | himself in that time, which might be l,covered by the wages that he was actually erning or could have earned lin the exercise of due diligence.
 Final Evidence.
 The first witness called Tuesday