Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-01-13
SUPERIOR COURT
Verdict for Plaintiff in Case OF
Stewart VS.. City of Water
ville-Case of John VS..
Maine Central r. r.

go &.
nesday's session of the superior court
in the cases Of ]. Walter Stewart OF
Waterville VS.. the City Of Waterville,
which were opened at Tuesdays session.
The remainder Of the session was de-
voted to the hearing Of the case Of John
VS.. the Maine Central Railroad, which
will be completed this forenoon.
At the opening of court Wednesday
morning the arguments were made IN
the cases Of j. Walter Stewart Of Wa
terville VS.. the City Of Waterville.
which were opened at Tuesdays se:'-
sion.
Carroll N. Perkins, city solicitor Of
Waterville, argued that the no compen-
sation was voted the plaintiff and that
he is not entitled to recover. He ar
gued that the record of examinations
were the only things to tell what DR..
Stewart did to take up his time and
that the amounts of the fees the doctor
received seemed fair compensation for
the work he performed. The fees turn
ed in amounted to $294.70 or about $33
a month. And he argued that no de-
duction was made for two and One-half
days each week when the. doctor in
spected meat at East Vassalboro.
Attorney Pattangall stated that the
only question for the&jury to decide was
upon the reasonableness or unreason-
ableness, the fairness or the unfairness
of the doctors charges. He argued that
DR.. Stewart was entitled to fair and
reasonable compensation as no salary
was fixed and that the jury should be
guided in their decision by the evidence
given on the stand. The evidence as to
what the doctors work was worth was
given by DR.. Fish and Mr.. Hanson, who
were members of the Board Of Health
of Waterville. And he argued that while
the doctors work as meat inspector did
not require that he work IL hours
day he had to be on duty practically all
of the time during the day. 2
Judge Beane then charged the jury
and the jurors retired at 1910 A. NJ. to
decide upon the cases. The jury. was
out on the cases until 100 p. NJ. when
they gave a sealed verdict. which was
reported to the court at $50 P. NJ.
John VS.. Maine Central r. r.
The next case before the court was a
suit brought by John Nichols, the next
friend Of Salien John to recover dam
ages for injuries sustained by Salien
John on Dec. ., 1914, in the freight yard
of the Maine Central Railroad at Wa
terville. Andrews & Nelson Of Augusta
appeared for the plaintiff and Johnson
& Perkins Of Waterville for the de-
PENDANT.
Attorney Nelson of Augusta in opening
the case stated that the plaintiff was in
jured by the falling of a heavy iron rail
upon his right leg, making two fractures
and as a result of the injury the plain
tiff will be deformed and is unable to
prosecute his ordinary occupation. For
this and his great suffering and for the
heavy medical expense the plaintiff seeks
to recover. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendant company was negligent in the
following respects: That it did not have
a platform high enough; that the rails
already placed on the car were near the
edge so that others piled on them would
fall off: that the fiat car was defective
in not being furnished with stakes to
prevent the rails from falling off; that
there was no suitable hoisting apparatus
nor were there enough men to handle
the rails: that the superintendent or the
man at that time taking his place was
negligent in ordering the men to heave
a rail at a time when it could not be
done safely: that the superintendent of
the crew was not present at the time
and that he should have warned the men
as to the danger involved in doing that
work.
Salen John. the boy who was injured.
was the first witness. He testified that
he had been in this country two years
and three months. He was first employed
by the Maine Central Railroad, later in
the cotton mill and then by the railroad
again. The usual safe methods of load
ing were not employed that day. The
order to heave was given when one end
Of the rail was high and the rail did
not go onto the car but fell back. break
ing his leg in different places. He was
taken to the railroad station at Water
Vile, where he was examined by DR..
Merrill. He was taken to the Sisters
hospital, where the first operation was
performed and steel plates were insert
ed in the leg. In February the plates
were removed from the leg. He was op-
Grated upon third time at Bangor.
Attorney Nelson read a deposition Of
Faris Kahil, a young man working with
the crew at the time Of the accident but
now employed at the Dupont Powder Co.
at Oakville, Va. The deposition stated
that there were IA men in the crew at
the time of the accident and that when
the order to heave was given one end of
the rail was not up high enough to safe.
ly heave.
! Dr. E. s. Merrill Of waterviile testified
concerning the operations performed
upon John and stated that it was ques-
ton whether to amputate or to try to
save the leg. In the first two operations
John was in very serious condition.
He showed an X-ray picture taken of
the leg before the third operation. In
his opinion the leg will get stronger rs
time goes on provided it does not go bad.
Attorney Perkins stated that the de-
Tense denied any negligence on the
part Of the Maine Central Railroad
The assistant superintendent of the
crew hired John, who, with three 9TH
er men. gave their ages as q. The
members Of the crew had been warned
several times of the danger. Mr.. Ell.
kins, the assistant superintendent OF
| the crew, moved the rails from one side
| Of the car to the other as they were
, loaded in. This particular rail slid on