Norwich bulletin., 1915-03-18

return a verdict for the defendant, the | C. M Shay Fertilizer Co.,, of Groton,
 in the suit for s1o,Ooo damages that that l brought against the company.
 | In the complaint Hadley alleged | that he received a fracture of the ribs
 and other injuries which had per l manently disabled him as the result | and a freight shed located on the de | fendant's property at the Navy Yard, ! while he was diScharging his duties as l brakeman for the New Haven road. Trial of the case was started Tuesday morning.
 Argued Motion to Direct Verdict. l The case was resumed Wednesday morning and shortly after F o'clock both sides had completed their cases | except for the arguments. At the | conclusion of the testimony Attorney l Avery made motion that the court direct the verdict for the defendant and the motion was argued by Attor- | defendant company and Attorney l Morgan for the plaintiff. When the | arguments were completed Judge Bennett took the matter under consid- eration until the afternoon session. l When court resumed at o'clock Judge Bennett directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, stating that it was not only necessary | for the plaintiff to show due care but | also to show negligence on the part | of the defendant. The plaintiff had | proved care on their part but had
 not proved negligence on the part | of the defendant for which reason he | granted the motion.
 | The jury then retired and after an 1 absence of about five minutes it an I nounced it's verdict through Foreman i Clifford E. Chapman
 Testimony Wednesday Morning. i When court came in Wednesday
 morning George K. Crandall, civil en- 1 gineer, explained a map of the lay
 out of the Shay plant, the siding, the
 freight shed and platform and other l details.
 He was followed by Dr. Edmund P 1 Douglass of Groton, who testified that | on Dec. 10, of last year he had made l a physical examination of Hadley at l the request of attorneys for the Shay Fertilizer Co. The examination was | held in the office of Dr. F. W. Hewes
 Hadleys physician, in Groton. pr l Douglass examined all parts of the l body which the plaintiff claimed had 1 been injured in the accident, had ex-
 anined the chest and made a thor
 ough examination as to his general l condition at that time. The examin- ation revealed a we'll developed chest 1 small scar on the left side which 1 had entirely healed, with no adhe-
 sions. the whole chest was normal, the | breathing was normal, there was nc | evidence of a fracture of any of the | ribs, none of which showed any bony l protuberances or prominences that
 would undoubtedly have been re- | vealed had there been 8 fracture. He l had requested to be allowed to take an X-Ray picture of the ribs to make | this examination, but Hadley had re-
 fused to submit to being X-rayed. | Medical Examinations.
 | Hadley had complained at the time l of having suffered injuries to his eye sight by the accident, but the witness made no examination of the eye
 sight as he did not pretend to be ar
 oculist. He caused three appoint | ments to be made between an ocults1 | and Hadley and the latter had kept | none of them. The witness was tol6
 of injuries to the arm and leg but they were reported to have healed SC | that there was no occasion for ar
 examination Of those members. The i examination failed to reveal any dis. ease of the kidneys or bladder as com plained of; the pulse was 76 and bea with normal regularity and pressure | D1 Douglass stated that Hadley ex.
 hibited symptoms of hypersenslbillty
 but these were not due to any othel
 cause than a condition of nervous ness brought about by the examina. | ton. The physician was unable tr detect any inflammation of the Dleu.
 "a of the lungs or inside chest wall: or any pleuratic condition.
 Under cross examination by Attor- | ney Morgan for the plaintiff, pr Douglass insisted that in his opinior | there had been no fracture of the rit l which was alleged to have been frac. | tured or any other rib, which would
 undoubtedly have been revealed under the examination. He testified that Hadley's chest expansion was not ab- normal to any great extent ,althougt | there was a slight deficiency of per | haps half inch due to lack of ex. ercise of the chest.
 | A report of Dr. Douglass submit.
 ted to Attorney Avery for the defense 1 which was read to the jury, stated l that Hadley was robust healthy mar l at the time of the examination ant
 which the witness testified.
 Frank E. Hutchins superintend
 ent for tho defendant company, gave a general description of the freigh | shed. platform, plant, etc, of thu
 Shay company, testifiying that he hat present platform and shed in Febru. l ary. 1913.
 For $5,000 For Loss Of Wife's Love When the Fadley vs. Shay case hat 1 been disposed of the trial of the sui
 brought by Lucien M. Sheffield of Olt
 Saybrook against Ava G. Beckwith O.
 the same place for $5,0Oo damages oI the claim that Beckwith alienated thu
 affections of Shefheld's wife, Cora, wa.
 started.
 Sheffield alleges that he was mar hied to Mrs. Sheffield Dec. 19, 1904
 and up to about three or four year
 ago they lived happily. Then Beck
 with entered their lives and by hi.
 acts and blan andishments he seducet
 Mrs. Sheffield. causing him to lose tn, l love and affections of his wife ane
 causing Eiu great pain of body ant
 distress of mind. He also charge'
 adultery between the defendant ant his wife at various times since Jan l 1, 1912. The defense make a genera
 denial of tie allegations.
 Wife's Brother Told.
 The witness had known Beclzwitl for about 10 years, he having mar
 ried niece of his wife. Beckwith'. | wife died in November, 1912. H. first learned of the improper rela | tions between Beckwith and his wifi,
 in January, 1913. the knowledge com AVS-DenIefs