Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-01-13
SETTLE GARDINER CASE
after DAY Spent IN
TAKING OF EVIDENCE

case of Marie f. James of Randolph
against the City of Gardiner and the
Town of Randolph which was heard
yesterday in the Superior court. The
settlement was made after the plain
tiff's side of the case had been pres
cnted. this taking the greater part
of the. day. Damages were claimed
in the sum of 81, 900 for injury sus-
tanned when Ms. James stepped into
q hole in the Randolph Gardiner
bridge. spraining her ankle quite
severely. The entry Of neither
party, no further action" was made
on the docket. Will c. Atkins of
Gardiner represented Mrs. James,
while George w. Heselton and Ernest
L. Goodspeed represented the city
and town.
At the start of the case. Mr.. Hesel-
ton took exceptions to the wording
of the notice of the accident to the
two towns, stating that it did not
set clearly the place of the accident
and that it did not agree with the
writ The objection was not sus-
tanned by the court and the cXcep-
tons were reserved.
Mrs. James. the plaintic, stated
that she was on her way to her work
in Hazards on the morning of Nov.
.. 1921. when the accident occurred.
She was close to the toll house on
the Randolph side of the bridge when
the heel of her shoe caught in hole
and she was thrown forward. she
threw out her hand and caught the
steel support that rises at this point
thus saving her from falling. She
had to stoop over to pull the heel of
her shoe from the hole which was a
slit between two planks about three
inches at the widest and tapering
to points. The pain was bad, she
stated but she continued on her way
to the factory where women. work.
ing with her, assisted her to the hos
pital where the injury was dressed.
She was unable to work, however,
and later went to her home in Ran
dolph where that evening, Dr. Ar
thur Strout attended her. In all he
treated the ankle 16 times and the
treatments continued at intervals I'M
til Feb. &c.
She outlined her expenses arising
from the injury. including time lost
from her work. the hire of a woman
to care for her and the doctor OK
penses. on cross examination she
told the same story although in more
detail.
DR.. StrOut declared that the sprain
had been severe and described the
treatments and dressings that he had
made and also identified his bill
which had been paid. He said the
trca was necessary and that
some weakness would be expected
after such an accident. He stated
that the woman was in fair health
and that her health did not retard
her recovery.
Ella Bolster of Gardiner. Mrs.
Rose Bartlett and Nellie McIntirc of
Randolph. all testified to Mrs.
James condition when she arrived
at the factory, that she apparently
suffered great pain and had been
lame for some time.
Willis A. Peaslee. of Randolph: n
carpenter, told of being thrown on
his hands and knees by having a
heel caught in the planknG. He was
not hurt and so did not notice the
hole particularly, although he know
that it had been fixed Il few weeks
after. lie said his accident tccurTcd
sometime in October. 1921.
Joe Shaw. Jr., declared the bridge
was in poor condition and described
one hole that correspondent to that
into which Mrs. James had :tepped
but Attorney HesClton objected to
having it described as the identical
hole. Garfield James, husband of the
plaintiff, described the injury to his
wife, told of her suffering and also
described the hole Albert Mason
of Randolph stated the sidewalk was
pretty poor and had been for three
or four years. Mr.. Atkins brought
out the fact that the Selectmen of
Randolph and the Mayor of Gardi-
ncr had appeared before the Leg
islature in 1921 and asked for funds
TO repair the bridge but these had not
been secured.
The plaintiff rested here and At
tOrncy HeSclton asked for a non-Suit
on the grounds of defective writ
a recess was taken while he law
yers looked up the law applying II
the case. During this time a settle
mcnt was made, the terms of which
were not made public.
The jury was excused until 10
o'clock Monday morning when the
case of Gilman VS.. Lyon 6 Trs, Pea
cock for the plaintiff and Pattangall
&, Locke, and Lancaster for the de-
PENDANTS Will probably be heard, be-
ing next on the docket. This morn
ins's sessions will be occupied with
court matters and this afternoon at
> O'Clock the criminal docket will
be called.