Norwich bulletin., 1914-12-16
At Afterneon session.

When the afternoon SeSSlon began Attorney Barnett cross examined the plaintiff. He brought out the fact that the man is now at work Tn quarry in Waterford.
 pr. John C. Taylor testified to the injuries that Andrea had sustained and Nellie R. Burby, matron at the hospital, told of his condition there Dr. William D. Cronin of New London also testified as to the nature or An- drea's injuries.
 Lucius E. Whiton, head of Wilton company at New London, testified as to the use of tools in machine shops and the liability of employees as to in
 One of the exhibits is a pair of ceilu- Ibid goggles such as the piatnttn claims should have been turnasned me man by the railroad company to pro- tect his eyes. Another exhibit is the hammer such as it is claimed was in use.
 Blind Man Testifies.
 William D. Forbes of New London. who was led to the witness chair by Deputy Sheriff George H. Stanton, be- cause he is blind, having lost his eye sight a year ago, followed Mir. Whiton as a witness. He said he is a mechan- | ical engineer, having been educated abroad, and he told of his wide eKpert- ence in practical work. He was asked by Attorney c. A. Hull about methods of cutting steel rails. The witness said there were two methods, one by susing a chisel and the other with a i hacksaW. The latter has come into ] general use and is more economical and faster. He described the differ enee in formation of particles which might fly from the rail or the ehisel 1 saying that the pieces from the rail 1 would be in silver form. while those from the chisel would be more round IT l form. To a question from the attor' ney, Mir. Forbes said that eight or ter blows upon a proper chisel in gooc condition would not be enough to cause any particles to fly from the ehisel. On cross examination by Attcrney Barnett, the witness said that he dfe not believe the head of good cflise would mushroom over short of 10( blows upon it by the hammer. >Parti' cles would fly from the mushroomet head and would fly in any direction.
 Foreman for the Railroad. Cornelius . J. Connors, residing a Midway, section foreman for the Nev Haven road for five and one-hal years, who had charge of the yarC limits at Midway at the time of tn accident, was the following witness i, He said he was in the habit of in structing the men where he saw ther was danger. He said he gave direc tions to his sub-foreman to have tn rail cut and this man picked ou Dominic Andrea to hold the chisel. H saw the other man with his eye hurt The men at work under him, he said were ordinary laborers and were pail $1.e0 per day. The foreman said the. had no saws for the purpose of cutting rails. He said he had not warned tn men at work. as he could not tell wha the danger was.
 Court adjourned at 4.so with Fore man Connors still on the stand.
 The Jury Chosen.
 The jury in the case consists of tn following: Andrew w. Deneh, Harlan P. Do1beare, Gustave D. Andrews Hollis H. Palmer, Jesse O. Crary l Preston; Carol B. Staples, Colchester William M. Fogarty, Griswold; Johl D. Avery. North Stonington; Auber wood. Franklin: John c. Donovan Sprague; Ernest L. Latimer. Salem. Next Case Assigned.
 The next case assigned for trial ha been excused till Thursday at 10 in tn morning. It is the $2,50o breach o promise suit brought by Annie Sham bach of New London against Loui alleges that, at his request, on Ma 15, 1910, she promised to marry him i two weeks, but that he has not kep the agreement and has ever since re fused to marry her, although. she still willing to marry him.
 1 which he acknowledges the promise t marry, but denies that the narriag was to be in two weeks from May Il 1910.
 The defendant makes the counter claim, that at the time of the engage ment the plaintiff said she had n child living by a former marriage whe in fact she had 9. five year old chil who was then living with her, claims, but he did not know this whe he promised to marry her. He further alleges in his answe that on May 15, 1910, he was earnin S7 per week and could not earn nor, and it was mutually agreed that tn . ] wedding was to take place at som | future time when he was earnin more. On June Is. 1910. he claims tn woman said to him that unless the were married immediately she woul , terminate any understanding betwee them and she then orally discharge him from the engagement to marry,
 The plaintiff in the suit denies tf truth of all the allegations in the de 3 fendant'S answer.