Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1919-03-20
SPECIAL VERDICT
IS SUBMITTED
Damage Suit Occupies the Circuit
Court for Two Days--7Other
Cases Disposed of
(FrOm Saturdays daily.) J


The case of Earl SQuires against
William Brown, which occupied the
attention of the court yesterday. went
to the jury this morning at 9:2O. A
special verdict has been prepared and
upon the answers of the jurors to the
questions submitted will rest the de-
cision of the court. The case is an
unusual one. 1t appears that Earl
,Squires, a young man about 19, was
employed by William Brown in pull
ing stumps and while at work, the
sweep to which the horses were at
tached broke off in the middle of the
capstan and the piece projecting from
the other side struck the young man,
injuring him severely. 1t was stated
that his left arm was broken in four
places and his hip bone also suffered
as a result of the accident. The jury
in the case is made up of the follow
ing: Spencer Johnson, Charles Herr
Ed Krueger, Michael Bindl, Joe Lewis,
John Liegel, Lyman E. Stone, Burt
Mortimer, J. j. Pfannstiehl, Otto Hor
nung, w. H. Mortimer and G. w. An
drews.
This is probably as big a case in
some ways as has been heard in Sank
county in a long time and the result is
considered a great victory for the de-
fendant, William Brown, who was rep
resented by Attorney V. H. Cady of
Baraboo and Daniel H. Grady of Port
age.
Grotophorst, Thomas & Quale ap-
peared for the plaintiff.
While $1,000 damages were award
ed, they may not be recoverable un-
ner the verdict as it stands in view
of the finding of the jury that the
plaintiff, Earl Squires, by his own neg
ligence, contributed to the injury.
Following are the answers of the
jury to the questions submitted
We, the jury empanneled to try
the issues in the above entitled ac-
tion, find for our special verdict as
follows:
Question No. l. Did the defendant |
at the time plaintiff was injured fail
to exercise ordinary care in providing I,
a stump machine furnished with safe |
ty devices and safeguards so as to
make said machine as free from dan
ger to the plaintiff, his employee, as
the nature of the employment would !
reasonably permit?
Answer: Yes.
Question No. g. If you answer the |
first question "yes." then was the
failure to exercise such ordinary care,
as stated in the question, a proximate ];
cause of plaintiffs injury?
Answer: Yes.
Question No. g. Did the defendant
at the time plaintiff was injured fail
to exercise ordinary care in provid-.
ing a sufficient sweep attached to
said machine?
Answer: No. |
Question No. 4. If you answer the
third question "yes," then was such
failure to so provide sufficient sweep
proximate cause Of the plaintiff S !
injury?
(No anSWer.)
Question No. 5. Did the defendant |
at the time plaintiff was injured fail |
to exercise ordinary care in provid- !
ing the device called dog or rachett? !
Answer: Yes
Question No. 6. If you answer |
question number five eyes" then was
such failure to exercise ordinary care |
a. prox;mate cause of the plaintiffs |
injury?
Answer: Yes.
Question No. Z Did any want of
ordinary care on the part OF the
plaintiff proximately contribute to
his injury?
Answer: Yes.
Question No. g. What sum will com !
pensate the plaintiff for the injuries =,
he received, exclusive Of the amount
paid out or incurred by the plaintiff
for nursing, doctors bills. hospital
bills and travelling expenses?
Answer: $500.
J. J. PFANNSTIHEL, |
Foreman. |
The case of L. c.. Peters VS.. Jerome
Parks has been continued to the next
term of court, and that Of Daisy Todd
VS.. Frank Martin has been settled.