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


we're arraienment of the occupants o,
the Haywood car for continuing theil
ride and not going back to the aid OF
the boys under the overturned car
He said the chauffeur went back af
forwards, but not until he had pu,
up his car and then took a ride out
in another car "to help the yoys." He
scored Virtue severely Throughout,
his argument.
He scoffed at the testimony of the
defence as to the speed of the car
He said some of the witnesses admit.
ted they had ridden but short dis.
tances in an automobile. Others were
far from the scene of the accident
and their testimony had little bear
ing, he said.
He declared that if the boys had
been going over Is to 20 miles an
hour they could never have stopped
the car as they did.
Lawyer Searles made a strong plea
for sufficient compensation for Beck
to care for his doctors bills which
amount to close $500 and for the loss
of earning power which the boy
would suffer for the rest of his life
He said the limit of damages set by
law was $4,000.
At the time this paper went tc
press the jury in the case of Philip
X. Beck VS.. Mrs. Margaret N. Hey
wood in Caledonia county court in ST.
Johnsbury, have had the case for "a
hours and still was unable to reach a
verdict. After considering the facts
for four hours they reported to the
court at $50 Monday evening that
they wished to have the evidence
given again as to just how the auto
mobile passed the Davis team.
After the reporter read the testi-
mony of Mr.. and Mrs. Davis the jury
retired. At $50 Tuesday morning
they came in and Foreman Tewksbury
said they could not agree. The court
urged them to harmonic their diff
ferences and agree upon verdict.
The court then sent them back to the
jury room for further consultation.
The court room was crowded Mon
day afternoon to hear Judge Fish's
charge to the jury in the automobile
case. Before the charge he announc-
ed that Fred J. Tewksbury of Rye
gate had been appointed foreman.
Judge Fish began his charge by
referring to the. declaration that the
complaint against the defendant is
that her car forced, pushed and
crowded the plaintiffs car out of the
highway, over steep embankment
into the river. That the car of the
defendant was driven at 40 miles an
hour, and the defendant wantonly,
malciously, unlawfully, carelessly
and negligently turned her auto as
it was about to meet the auto in
which the plaintiff was riding to the
left of the center of the highway and
upon the car in which he was riding,
and thereby pushed and crowded his
car into the river. That the defend
ant did not have her car under con-
troll and that thereby the defendant
wantonly, maliciously, recklessly and
negligently crowded and pushed the
nlaintiff's car outof the highway, over
the embankment and into the river,
to the damage. of the plaintiff in the
sum of $4,000.
"The defendant says she is not
guilty and claims the accident was
due to the negligent management of
the plaintiffs car. 1t is for, the jury
to find what the fact is, whether as
the plaintiff claims, or as the de-
PENDANT claims, and if as the plain
tiff claims, what the damages are.
The Court defined negligence as a
shortage of legal duty that causes in
jury. Negligence consists in the fail
ulc to observe that degree of care
which the law requires for the pro-
lection Of the interests likely to be
injuriously affected by the want of it.
"The burden of making out the
case rests with the plaintiff who must
show by fair balance of the evil
dence that the negligence occurred as
he alleged, and that he was without
negligence On his part.
"The driver of an automobile shall,
upon approaching a sharp curve OF
turn have his automobile under per-
feet control. No automobile shall be
run on a public way laid out under
the authority of the statute in a
careless or negligent manner. If
person runs an automobile at a rate
of speed exceeding rs miles an hour
outside of city or incorporated vii
lage Il IS @ it shall be prima
facie evidence that the automobile
was run carelessly OF negligently.
The Court then told the jury that if
they found that the Silsby car was
operated in excess of rs miles an
hour, as it approached the place
where the accident occurred, and
that such rate of speed contributed
in the least degree to the accident,
then the plaintiff could not recover
unless they found that prudent man
in the circumstances would have
driven the car at such speed, in ex-
cess of Is miles an hour.
"If you find that the failure of the
driver of the Packard automobile to
exercise the care that a prudent man
would exercise in like circumstances,
contributed in the least degree to the
of the accident. your ver-