Daily Kennebec journal., 1914-03-13
Damage Suit Of Nathaniel
Parsonsvs. LA. &W.Ry.
Is Finished at Thursdays Ses-
siOn--Cdse Given TO Jury
At 4.45 P. M...SeaIed virdict VIII
Be Returned This Morning

At Thursdays session of the supreme
court the personal damage suit Of
Nathaniel Parsons of Waterville VS..
the L., A. & w. st. Ry., of which the
ad damnum is $4,000, was resumed.
The defence had opened the case on
Wednesday and continued with the in
PRODUCTION of witness on Thursday
morning.
Archie Norcross, a civil engineer of
Augusta, was called to the witness
stand and questioned in regard to the
plan which he had made of the place
where the accident occurred, namely,
Temple street, Hallowell, and the i'm
mediate surroundings.
Maggie Nichols took the stand and
testified that she was a passenger on
the car from which the plaintiff Par
sons was thrown. Witness was posi-
tive that Parsons was sitting on a
seat of the observation platform of
the car, which is en- the rear end. The
car was running with what would Or
dinarily be the rear-end first, accord
ing to witness. Miss Nichols noticed
that the man was apparently in an
intoxicated condition as he sat with
his head dropped and swayed back
and forth as the car rocked. Wit
ness saw plaintiff get up from his
seat and jump from the car. Attor-
ney Sawtelle cross examined briefly.
John F1agg, who was also a passen-
ger on the car, took the stand and
gave testimony which was in large
measure a corroboration of the story
of the preceding witness.
Edward White of Augusta testified
that he was standing at the corner of
Temple and Water streets in Hallowell,
where the accident occurred, waiting
for the car The car came along and
witness saw plaintiff jump. Heard
plaintiff say following the accident
that he had had a few drinks. Wit
ness also smelled liquor on plaintiffs
breath.
Superintendent S. w. Dunn of the
road was the next witness to testify.
Witness related the fact that he had
been informed of the accident by the
conductor in charge of the car. Wit
ness went down to the scene OF the
accident with Attorney Nelson and in
vestigated the matter. Witness went
to house where plaintiff was taken
following the accident with Mr.. Mel
son. and plaintiff told him (witness)
that 1t was his fault that the aeci-
dent occurred but that he did not think
that he should be wholly to blame;
thought he ought to be helped on his
doctors bills. Witness asked plaintiff
if $50 would be sufficient and plaintiff
agreed that it was. This amount of
money was paid plaintiff, according tc
witness.
A release was then presented and
carefully read by Mr.. Nelson, accord
ing to witness, also explained after
which the plaintiff signed, doing the
same in order to signify that he, the
plaintiff, exonerated the defendant
company from all blame. Witness on
cross -examinat ton was sure that the
release was read and thoroughly ex-
planned to plaintiff before signed it.
Drs. A. Fl. Sturtevant and H. j.
Fredericks were then introduced by
the defence as expert witnesses as to
the effect of morphine administered
hypodermatically on normal person.
DR.. Vosberg of the medical staff at
the Augusta State hospital was call
ed by the plaintiffs counsel and asked
in regard to the effect of morphine
administered in the manner heretofore
mentioned. Both sides then rested the
case. An adjournment was taken un-
til p. M.
Afternoon Session.
At the. beginning of the afternoon
session Attorney Nelson argued for
the defendant company. Mr.. Nelson
argued clearly and in very emphatic
manner. He dwelt at length on the
question of the condition of the plain
tiff when he was riding on the car.
HE left Waterville. gentlemen. at
about Il o'clock noon, on the day of
Nov. 8, 1913. He does not remember
what he did after arriving at Augusta;
does not know what car he took for
Hallowell or remember anything that
he did. What must this suggest? Our
contention is that the man was in
toxicated and l think, gentlemen, that
we have shown this by the various
witnesses by a fair preponderance OF
evidence" Mr.. Nelson's argument
was an able one, eloquently delivered,
and gave a clear, concise summing up
of the case. A short recess was TAX
en-, when counsel for plaintiff, Melvin
E. Sawtelle, commenced his argument.
Mr.. Sawtelle's argument, like that Of
Mr.. Nelson, who proceeded him, was
brilliant, we'll delivered. He devoted
much time as to the question OF in
toxication relative to the plaintiff at
the time of the accident and contrary
to the testimony of the passengers
who were on the car in regard to the
Of the man. He reiterated
several times on the testimony of DR..
C. E. H. Beane of Hallowell, who
stated positively on the witness stand
that after an examination of the plain
tiff he found no traces Of intoxication.
Judge Spear delivered his charge and
the case went to the jury at 4.45. The
Jury will bring in sealed verdict this
morning.