Weekly Caledonian. (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1919-1920, 1919-12-10

others in the car about going back
and what he did the day after i'll
making an investigation OF the case
| was ordered stricken from. the re-
cords by the court.
Before the plaintiffs closed thei.
side of the case they recalled to tho
stand Philip Beck, Clayton Sil.by
John Lee and also introduced as !,
witness Sheriff Wolthen who 'les-
cribed the car tracks of the Silsby
ear a. he saw them after the acct.
dent.
The county court room was crowd
ed Saturday morning to listen to the
closing pleas in the automobile case
which has been on trial all the week.
Gen. Sargent closed for the defense
and Lawyer Searles made the final
plea in the case Saturday forenoon.
Court took an adjournment at noon
until Monday afternoon at two
O'Clock whe Judge Fish will give the
charge to the jury. Friday after
noon Lawyer Graves opened the case
for the plaintiff and was followed by
Lawyer Leavens for the defense.
Gen. Sargent opened his plea Sat
urday morning by stating that while
all had sympathy for anyone in dis
tress it was the duty of the jury to
sift the facts in the controversy and
decide the case according to the
facts.
He touched first upon. the evil
dence of Messrs. Balch, Livingston
and Wolthen, all Of whom testified
that the Silsby car for the last IS
feet of its joureny was running OIL
slight curve, turning slightly to the
left. He then stressed the statement
that it was impossible OH account of
the physical condition of the road for
the two cars and the Davis team to
pass at the same spot.
He devoted much time to the tes-
timony of Clayton Silsby, calling the
jury's attention to the fact that the
boy changed his account of how the
accident happened over and over
again, but that after the recess the
Silsby boy again took the stand as
his counsel stated he wanted to ex-
plain how this testimony varied. If
his final explanation, Gen. Sargent,
declared, was correct how did the
Haywood car have anything to with
the Silsby car being in the position
that caused the accident. .:
Even if the accident happened as
John Lee said it did, Gen. Sargent
told the jury that the accident was
not the fault of the Cadillac car. "If
the Silsby car had been under per-
feet control the boy could have
stopped it anywhere. Isn't it char
liable to say that the boys didn't
know just what happened, and that
they couldn't control the car? These
boys were having a joy ride and
doing things that over and over
again result in disaster"
Gen. Sargent said the Silsby boy
told the story of the accident in
three different ways, another one of
the boys tells it in one of the ways
described by young Silsby, and the
third boy has an entirely different
version of the accident. He said the
boys could be excused for their va
riations of the accident because of
their youth and because of the fact
that with danger ahead they did not
fix it in their minds just what hap
pened.
Much stress was laid by Gen. Sar-
gent on the testimony Of both MI.
and Mrs. Davis who testified that
Cadillac car had passed them and
that later the two cars passed each
other. He said the Davis were dis
interested witnesses and their testi-
mony indicated nothing false. "On
one side we have the account of
what happened as the boys saw it
contradictory, inconsistent, and i'm
possible on account Of the physical
condition of the road. On the Other.
side you have the testimony Of Mr..
and Mrs. Davis who were perfectly
familiar with the road and who knew
just what occurred. If all three vehi-
cles passed at the same time would
not the Davis team have been in
jeopardy? These boys must have
been mistaken in>their testimony and
the passage of the vehicles was in
succession as the Davis say. The
Cadillac car passed the team, Mrs.
Davis said, went back to its side of
the road, and later passed the Silsby
car. Mrs. Davis testified that she
saw the two cars pass.
Lawyer Searles made the final
summing up for the plaintiff. He
made very earnest plea for sub
stantial damages for Philip Beck,
whom he said had been put under
severe handicap for life by his in
jury.
Lawyer Searles said his opposing
counsel General Sargent was pre-em-
inent as an attorney not only in YER
mont but in the nation and was a.
very adroit pleader. He warned the
jury not to place too much faith in
General Sargent's pleading as it was
done purely for effect. He said the
facts must be considered alone in de-
termining a verdict. ...
Mr.. Scarles maintained chat the
entire argument which his opponent
had used was based upon a wrong
supposition. He said the General