Norwich bulletin., 1917-05-17

A. Griggs, Windham; Marc Lewis, Eastford; William Belleyance, Plain R. Barber. Sterling: Harlan P. Ami- don, Ashford; Park Smith, Canter- bury; Welcome Davis, Eastford; Roy al c. Rawson and Arnold H. Battey. Kiliingly: Charles Headen and Adver E.. Hopkins, Plainheld.
 Fathers Evidence.
 Stanley Sugar, father Of the boy, was the first witness. He told of the condition of his son before the acci- dent and since that time.
 The boy himself was then called to the stand and told of how the acci- dent happened as he was on his way home from St JosepfS school. He was going down Main street and had got to a point below Ash street when he was struck by the truck. When to his mouth, left. wrist and shoulder. The boy told of having trouble chew ing since the accident.
 On cross examination he told the court that he was going in the same direction as the truck at the time and the truck was about opposite him when it turned in.
 Was on Truck.
 John Lac, who was on the truck at the time of the accident, was of the opinion that the front part of the truck had struck the boy. The walk covered with ice. After the truck had been brought to a stop over the walk the boy was found underneath with his shoulder caught under the rear wheel. He was frightened by the blood coming from the boys mouth and he went away from the place.
 Dr. Owen O'NeiI testified to taking care of the boy while he was at the hospital and to the extent of his in juries. These consisted of crushed left arm and having the soft parts of the jaw around the mouth pulled away. There was a fracture of the bones in the arm.
 Drivers Testimony.
 John c. Hattin, driver or the truck, testified that as he was about to turn in the driveway he saw the boy run ming down the street with his head down. When about eight feet from the truck the boy looked up and throwing his hands in the air he slid underneath the machine. The witness brought the truck to a stop in about eight feet. In the opinion Of witness the front of the truck could not have hit the boy.
 On crSss examination the witness stated that he did not have any power on when he made the turn. After the accident he carried the boy into store. When he first saw the boy the front wheels were over the sidewalk.
 Physicians on the Stand.
 Drs. Weldon and Wilcox testified to the examinations they had given the boy in regard to his injury. Dr. John Weldon stated that he examined the boy 0urfng the present month and found his lower lip to be dropping and affecting his speech. He also found that the boy could not open his jaws the-fuII space and that he could open them but very little at first but after some effort the mouth could be opened farther. In some cases this disfigurement was not permanent, es- pecialy when the lip was affected by the nervous system. In this case the boy has no paralysis, as he can move the muscles of his face, but it does affect his eating food. It is probable that he will not recover, but this was not certain. By means of a surgical operation the lip could be brought back nearly to its normal state and by this his speech would approach the normal state. By an operation a piece of the lip couH be taken out and the lip shortened.
 On cross examination the doctor stated that he found no wound to in dicate that the disflgurement had been made by an injury.
 Dr. Wilcox was of the opinion that the lip would always remain as it does at present. but an operation would it to some extent, but would not close it. The operation would leave no scar on the outside.
 Testimony for Defendants.
 At this point the plaintiff rested Dr. T. R. Parker was put on the stand for the defendants. In the direct ex- animation the doctor agreed with Dr. Weldon as to the disf gurement and to the operation that could be performed
 On cross examination Dr. Parker stated that an operation would cer- tainly improve the lip and the boys speech. He was not certain that the lip could be brought back but he was sure that no scar would be left on the outside, as the cutting would be done inside of the mouth
 Verdict for $2,ooo.
 The court then took a short recess after which the lawyers argued to the jury. After being out about one hour the jury returned with a verdict of F, 900 in favor of the plaintiff. Court then adjourned until this morning.