Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-12-04
Rescripts in Three
Cases Hadned Down
by Law Court Monday

Rescripts were handed down by
the law court Monday in cases from
Penobscot, Oxford and Aroostook
counties.
Penobscot GAGS
The motion of the defendant Is
overruled in the Penobscot county
case of Charles w. Davis VS.. Dennis
f. Crowley.
The rescript. Per Curtain, is as fol-
lows:
This is an action to recover dam
ages for personal injuries received
by the plaintiff September 26. 1921.
while the plaintiff was in the service
of the defendant in the construction
Under the provisions of Public Laws
of 1919, Chap. 23S, plaintiffs contrib
utory negligence is not involved.
The jury retupned a verdi:t for the
plaintiff for the sum of $1004.25.
The case is before us on general
motion.
We have examined the record with
great care and are unable to discov-
err where the jury erred in finding
that the defendant was negligent,
and that the injury complained of
was caused by such negligence.
AS to the claim that the damages
are excessive, it clearly appears that
prolonged suffering, and total inca
pacity for labor for many months,
resulted from the injury. To fix the
amount of damages was duty Of
the jury. We cannot say from the
record that the damages are excess
sive.
Oxford Case
In the oxford county case of Ro-
muald Paradis VS.. Cedric Judkins,
the motion of the plaintiff is over
ruled.
The rescript, which was drawn by
Associate Justice George M. Hanson
of Calais. is as follows:
Action on the case. The plaintiff
sued to recover damages for an al
legged personal assault by the de-
PENDANT. a deputy sheriff. The jury
returned verdict for the defendant.
plaintiffs general motion for a new
trial.
Held:
l. We are persuaded that the find
ing of the jury is fortified by the
evidence. The questions were sub
mitted to the jury under instructions
to which no exception was taken.
We must assume that the instruc-
tons were proper. The jury found
that the defendant is not liable, and
we cannot say from the whole record,
as mater of law. that the verdict is
clearly, palpably wrong. We do not
approve some of the measures taken
by the defendant in his zeal in the
performance of his duty. If the tes-
timony rested there, our conclusion
would be different. There is. how
ever, another element to be consid-
cred which no doubt impressed the
jury, and that, is the alleged due care,
and lawful use of the highway on the
part of the plaintiff. Having in mind
the occurrences so fully detailed in
the evidence. the many lights, the
great speed on approaching the chain,
the greater speed developed on see
ing the lights, seeing the officer and
the men with him, all creating a stu
alton where he must have known he
would not be in danger of bodily
harm if he stopped, as an innocent
man would stop, yet he drove forward
regardless of consequences. To the
resulting damage his own want of
due care contributed in large
measure. In view of all the evidence
the verdict must stand.
Aroostook Case
The motion of the defendant is
overruled in the ArooStook county
case of Howard l.. Good vs.. Perley
S. Barrie.
The rescript.. which was drawn by
Associate Justice George NJ. Han
son of Calais, is as follows:
Action on the case to recover
damages for injuries to property
sustained by the plaintiff in an auto
mobile collision. which occurred at
about seven o'clock p. NJ, July 80.
1921. The jury returned verdict
for the plaintiff for $494.24, and the
case is before us on defendants
general motion.
The plaintiff was driving his car. a
Franklin, five passenger, weighing
about twentythree hundred pounds.
An employee of the defendant. one
Gillis was driving the defendants
automobile. a Ford touring car.
weighing about nineteen hundred
pounds. Defendant is the owner and
MzzXaERs IA