Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1917-09-27
DAMAGE CASE STILL ON.
Suit Growing of Automobile Accident
near south Royalton.

Suit Growing Of Automobile Accident
near South Royalton.
All day yesterday in Chittenden county
Ida M. Noyes VS.. Glenn Rowell an action
in tort for the recovery OF damages for
injuries received while the plaintiff was
riding in the defendants car. The case
was begun Tuesday afternoon. 1t will
probably continue through the day to-day.
The attorneys for the plaintiff are r. e.
Brown and T. f. Hopkins. v. A. Billiard
and c. p. Cowles represent the defendant.
The plaintiff continued her case yester-
day morning by calling the defendant to
the stand. His examination was conducted
by Mr.. Brown. The defendant testified
that he was in the livery business in the
town Of South Royalton. and that he kept
teams and two automobiles for hire. His
testimony showed that on August 10. 1916,
he received. a call to bring two ladies
from Tunbridge to South Royalton. These
two ladies were the plaintiff and her
sister.
The witness was then questioned about
the general lay of the land in the vicinity
Of the accident, and his familiarity with
1t by travelling over 1t often In both direc-
tons. He testified that. as he drew near
the point of. the accident, he veered a
little to the right to avoid a sandy place
in the middle of the road. His wheels on
that side began to sink in and he tried to
get pack Into the road. Finding that he
could not do this. and seeing hat he was
likely to 90 down into the stream below.
he swung around SO as to go front end
first, rather than to take a chance of
going over on the side. When the machine
stopped. the front end of the car was in
the stream and the rear end on the bank.
The automobile was not seriously injured.
The witness testified hat at the time
he began to go off the road he wal
travelling at the rate of Is or 20 miles an
hour. He was not thrown out of the
machine. but the two passengers in his
car were thrown into the stream. Tn
plaintiffs sister was not hurt beyond a
general shaking up. The plaintiff herself
was injured about the hip and boulder
and had a cut across the forehead, besides
several bruises.
Only one other witness was called yes
terday morning. This was Harold John
son, who lives near the scene of the ac-
cident and who was n witness to 1t. He
described the whole thing as he saw it.
He was on and when the of
the car were assisted out OF the water and
helped get the car out Of the river He
also testified In regard to the tracks in
the road which he saw after the accident.
He also took the stand the first thing in
the afternoon and was cross-exaMined.
The next witness was Hazen johnson. a
brother of Harold, who was also In the
vicinity at the time Of the accident and
testified in regard to practically the
same things as his brother.
Carl Ricketts,. a cousin of the Johnson
boys, was stopping at their home at the
time of the accident and testified to as
siytinR the people In the car. Miss Ida
Rowell. a niece of the plaintiff. was then
called to the stand. She testified in re-
gard to going to the Johnson house after
the accident and helping her aunt to get
To her home. Her testimony conferred
about the extent of the injuries which her
aunt suffered.
DR.. w. c., Mitchell Of Tunbridge. who
was called to attend the plaintiff as soon
"A she arrived home. and who had general
charge of her case. gave quite extended
testimony In regard to her injuries. He
was closely c~ross-examined by Mr..
Bullard, who went into detail infinitely to
show that none of the injuries were Of a
permanent nature
Mrs. Liszie Rowell. sister of the plain
AIN. who was in the car with her at the
time of the accident. was the last wit
meas on the stand In the afternoon. Her
testimony was In regard to the details Of
~. accident itself and the events Just
nreceding It. as she remembered them.
NJ Bullard's cross-examination was In
nrorress at the time court adjourned for
the night.