Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1920-10-19

damage case resulting from iniu,,a. an .
tanned BY Mrs. Kelley In helng RIM ovs
~ % automobile owned BY the defend
not, ana operated ct the time by ON
c,ed Comseu. Mrs. Kelley's home n h
cleveland. Ohio. but she was living h
hnmtord In September of the wear 1910
Wnen the accident took place. She IA
nearing the junction of Bridee an.
FRANKLIN Streets, very busy placs 1,
regard 70 tra6lc. She saws aha looksr
up franklin Street but cav M sntos
snen looked along Bridge Street an;
saw the Thibodesu machine iust sntar
ing the bridge from Congress Street. i
vas some distance away and she started
70 cross the street, but before she had
accomplished her object found thu ma
chine upon her. 10 wac coming At !,
rapid rate, estimated at from twenty. f1v,
20 thirty miles an hour for the purnos,
OF climbing Q bill on high. The machin,
struck Mrs. Kelley and both ricbt hanI
wheels passed over her body. beside roll
ing and dragging 1t some little distance
Sne was insensible when picked up anc
carried to the hospital. There II wa,
found she had sustained broken breast
Done, hve broken ribs, fractured skull
and her body was generally bruised
Because OF the injuries, paralysis set in
and she did not regain her senses TO,
Two weeks, and then only partially, and
not fully for I've weeks. As q resplt 81
these Injuries 1t 10 claimed she IA \ per.
manent invalid and has lost the SIGHT Of
one eye almost entirely. In the accident
Mrs. Kelley's false teeth were knocke ed
out and the rings she wore on one hand
were torn OF. Her 6ress, which was
exhibited In court, was almost torn from
her body.
At the beginning OF the Wednesday
afternoon session, the jury were retired
while the opposing counsel argued the
questions OF contributory negligence OF
the parties and the legal relation of the
defendant and Fred Comeau, who was
driving the Thibodeau car at the time Of
the accident. Whether Mrs. Kelley used
due care in crossing q forty five foot
street when she saw q car coming 265
feet away, or whether the driver Of the
car exercised due care In approaching q
dangerous point of the village on accou IT
OF the congestion of traffic and what
would constitute due care 10 both cases
and whether the relation of master and
servant existed between Thibodesu and
Comeau at the time of the accident, as
It was admitted the latter was driving
for bis own pleasure, and was not In the
service of the defendant.
After the argument the jury returned
to the box and the defense put In It's
testimony. This differed somewhat
from that presented by the plaintiff.
The collision was admitted and the in
jury to the plaintiff, but the defense
denied responsibility. Mrs. Kelley's
counsel claimed that Comeau was not
to drive q car and that he
bad no license. The last was admitted
but not the first. It was claimed Comeau
had been instructed in the use of cars
but bad no license. The testimony in-
troduced was to prove that the car ap-
preached this junction at speed of not
more than eight or ten miles an hour,
and that the horn was sounded several
times. Furthermore 1t was claimed a
car was approaching in an opposite
direction and that Mrs. Kelley saw both
care. That In crossing the street she
hesitated at least twice on account OF
apparent danger, the last time when
only six or seven feet In front of the on
coming car, too late to prevent a col
lision.
Messrs. Ralph T. Parker and George
A. Hutchins were the lawyers for Mrs.
Kelley and Albert Beliveau for Mr..
Tbibodeau.
A verdict was given the plaintiff In
the Kelley vs.. Tbibodeau case, the
amount of damages awarded Mrs. Kelley
being $4,500.97; and her husband for
expense incurred and for loss of the
society OF his wife S2,251.17.
On Thursday morning the case of A.
Gauthier & Son vs.. Walker d. Hines,
Director General of Railroads, as agent
by the president. This is q
suit to recover the cost OF tomatoes
alleged to have been injured In trans
portstion. The firm above mentioned
lives and does business in Rumford. In
the fall of 1918 they bought and received
4 carload of canned tomatoes-1250
cases, at cost of 81 so per dozen cans.
This consignment was received the first
Of November, 1918. On opening the car
the goods were found to be in Q dam
aged condition. They were packed in
cartons and In transit water had entered
the car softening the pasteboard of
which the cartons were made so that
they were broken open. The labels
were washed from cans also, and the
cans themselves had been thrown about
the car and bruised. STbey were also
Their condition was called to
the attention of Arthur P. White, freight
agent at Rumford, who told Mr.. Gauthier
10 take such cans ss were In good con-
5itiou and leave the balance with the
He and bis son did so and left
3O5 cases with the railroad. 1t was for
these the Messrs. Gauthier sought COM
pensatiOn.
The railroad took these cases and dis
posed of them 10 Portland and rendered
the amount received, less expense, to
the company, amounting to 1855 SO,
which the plaintiff commended was not
10 accordance with the agreement en-
tered into with White, the freight agent,
and representative OF the government.
The verdict was for the plaintiff in
the amount Of 1857 So.
Albert Beliveau appeared for plaintiff
and Charles B. Carter for defendant.
The next case presented for trial was
Warren A. Emery VS.. Alonzo F. Chap
man for the determination of an alleged
unsettled account. 1t seems Mr.. Emery
and Mr.. Chapman back in 1914 were
peieh boring farmers in the town of
Bethel 10 the year mentioned Mr..
Emery left his farm to engage In lumber
ing operations 10 different part of the
state, and be hired Mr.. Chapman to do
many things about the farm he had left
10 Bethel. Mir. Chapman also at one
time purchased the hay on the Emery
farm. The unsettled account originated
this way. The last dicker between the
men was for cutting hay on the farm by
Mr.. Chapman. This gentleman hired
help and went to expense on the job and
wanted money with which to settle,
which Mr.. Emery was slow In sending.
On account of the law limitation, Chap
man sued Emery and recovered and at
that time supposed and claimed the
accounts of both men were settled. But
this action made bad blood between
the men, and Mr.. Emery brought the
present suit to recover items, which he
claimed were not settled. These items
we're three in number balance for
hay sold Chapman of SITES, for chemi-
Gals sold $500, and for use OF sheds
$1,000. The last item was dropped.
The fertilizer In question was called
chemicals by Mr.. Emery and was worth
a. so Der hundred weight; but Mr..