Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-24
SUPREME COURT
Verdict for Defendant in Case of
Parsons VS.. L., A. & w. st.
Ry.-Tuesday Date of
Williamson Memorial

With the adjournment of Fridays
session of the supreme court and the
dismissal of all Jurors was indicated
the completion of all jury trials in
the term, A final adjournment will
probably be reached at the conclusion
of the memorial exercises for the late
Joseph Williamson, Tuesday afternoon
Court opened at the usual hour Fri
day morning and jurors were drawn
for the case of Parsons VS. the Lewis
ton, Augusta & Waterville Street
Railroad Co., after which other Jurors
were dismissed by the court with
words of approval for the services
which they had rendered.
The case of Nathaniel Parsons vs.
the L., A. & w. st. Railway Co. then
came for the second time before the
supreme court of this State, having
come to trial in the March term OF
dict was reached by the jury.
in the trial Friday the plaintiff was
represented by Melvin E. Sawtelle and
the defendant company by John E
Nelson. The case was opened in be.
half of the plaintiff by Mr.. Sawtelle
who called 10 witnesses Their testi.
mony founded the contention that Mr.
Parsons ON Nov. s. 1913, had beer
thrown from the platform of a spe.
cial car of the defendant company
when it gave sudden lurch in round.
ing a curve on Water street in Halo.
we'll The place of the accident was es.
tablished as a little below Academy
street. The testimony Of the witnesses
for the plaintiff seemed to set the
speed at which the car was going as
in the vicinity of Is miles per houl
and asserted that the car made nc
stop at Academy street. The case was
suspended until afternoon when court
adjourned at about 1890.
The afternoon session of court open
ed at o'clock and Mr.. Sawtelle com
pleted the case for the plaintiff. Mr.
Nelson opened the case for the defenc,
by briefly outlining its contentious t.
the jury. Several witnesses stated tina
they had been on the car with Par
sons whom, they stated, appeared to b,
intoxicated. Their testimony differed
from that presented by the plaintiff IL
that it stated that the car had stop
ped at Academy street in Hallowell.
was testified that the car had JUS
started from Academy street and hat
attained speed of from four to II
miles per hour when the plaintiff sud
denly got up and with a call of hoo
ray" deliberately jumped from the car
1t was testified that the man had
struck on his feet and had then fall
ell. Certain injuries including brok-
en- ankle were sustained as a result
of the accident but these were not in
dispute by the opposing sides.
One of the witnesses testified that
he had seen the man Jump from the
car and had helped him up and leaned
him against one of the poles nearby,
asking during the process If he were
drunk or crazy. To this the plaintiff
had responded that he thought he
was being carried by the place where
he had wished to get off the car.
Many witnesses testified that the
plaintiff had answered the inquiries
of the conductor of the car by saying
that the accident had been through
fault of his own and that those In
charge of the car had been in no way
to blame. Testimony was also given
concerning the slight curve in the
tracks at the place of the accident
and that there had been no iurch OF
the car, as was alleged by the plain
tiff.
Two papers were exhibited by the
defense which testimony confirmed
as having been signed by Mr.. Parsons
OH the night of the accident in the
presence OF witnesses. The first pur-
ported to be a statement which the
plaintiff had made concerning the ma
ture of the accident and the second
was a release" of responsibility on
the part of the defendant company for
the accident, which had been signed
it was testified, after an agreement
that the company settle medical bills
to the amount of $40. This agreement,
it was testified, had been entered into
with entire satisfaction by the plain
tiff at that time.
After a brief rebuttal the jury was
excused for few moments and upon
their return the court charged the
jury that they might return verdict
for tho defendant. The reason for this
instruction was explained by Justice
Cornish as being in accord with the
law by which a case where no ver-
dict for the plaintiff could stand in
the law court it is the duty of the
court to order verdict for the de-
PENDANT. The foreman or the jury
stepped to the desk of the clerk and
signed the verdict in favor OF the de-
PENDANT.
The jurors were dismissed by the
court with words of approval for their
services and court adjourned at 5.15.
Williamson Memorial Exercises 80 B:
Held Tuesday