Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1924-03-07
OPEN new TRIAL IN SUIT
AGAINST LAWRENCE FOR
INJURIES TO MCPHEE BOY

A new trial in the case of McPhee
VS.. Lawrence was begun Thursday
at the March term of the supreme
court and will probably last until
late Saturday. The case is one in
which the plaintiff. Ernest T. Nc
Phee of Gardiner asks for damages
for injuries to his son. Harmonfi
alleging that the boy was struck by
an automobile owned and driven on
June 80, 1922, by Wallace Lawrence
of South Gardiner, and that the boy
suffered a fracture of the upper
leg which has not healed as it should.
This case was tried at the March
1928 term of the superior court be-
fore Justice Spear and at that time
attracted wide spread attention be-
cause of it's peculiar nature. A YER
dict Of $8,533.50 for the boy, in one
case and of $4,000 for the father in
the other was brought in by the jury.
The plaintiff at once appealed for a
new trial, and the case went to the
law court, where the motion for the
new trial., and the case went to the
law court, where the motion for the
new trial was granted.
There are in reality two cases. one
brought by the boy against Law
renee and the other brought by his
father. but they are being tried to-
gether.
A large diagram Of the scene of
the accident in South Gardiner was
first produced. The accident occur
ed at railroad crossing, and from
the testimony, there is no dispute
that the boy caught his foot in the
track just before the accident and
had been unable to extract it.
T,eOrDard M BARNARD a civil pnoi -
neer, waS the first witness for the
plaintiff. He drew the diagram and
explained 1t to the court.
Harmon Leroy McPhee, the plain
tiff then took the stand. He testi-
fled that he was going to the Com
munity house to meet his cousin,
when his foot became caught in the
track at the crossing. He saw the
automobile coming as he was trying
to withdraw his foot and then it hit
| him.
George A. Holt of South Gardiner
who was at a distance stated that
| he saw the boy with his foot caught
| and saw him attempt to throw him.
self from the path of the oncomne
car. He saw the car strike the
plaintiff.
Joseph, crossing tender at this
point, said that he saw the boy with
| his foot caught in the rail and went
to help him eXtricate it. He did moi
get there before the Lawrence cal
went by him. He did not see the
accident as the car was between him
and the boy. He said that he haC
not seen the auto until it passed him
| Doctors George w. Alexander anC
DR.. Asa +. Libby, testified to the
boys condition when he was brought
to the Gardiner General hospita
shortly after the accident and tC
subsequent treatment. There was g
straight fracture across the upper
third of the upper leg bone of the
| left leg, and slight abrasion of the
skins over the fracture. X-rays OF
the injury were taken after which
the bone was set Frequent X-fays
were taken after that date and upoT
August 26, slight bowling of the
bone was shown. DR.. Abbott was
| called in and he performed n bone
grating operation. using bone from
the boys right leg. On September
| Is, the X-ray uictures again showed
bowling of the leg. The
boy was discharged from the
hospital about the last of thai
month at which time some bone
union was found. The leg has never
nealeQ correctly anu the DOy now
goes around on crutcheS. DR.. Abbott
said that the bruise on the leg would
not have been inconsistent with q
blow. When the boy was taken tC
the hospital, there was some physica
shock. His bill for services was s75
while DIR. Alexander stated that his
bill was $505.
| Ernest Burgess of South Gardiner
who was near the crossing at the time
of the accident, said that he saw the
| boy caught in the track and at that
time did not see the auto. But n hall
minute later he saw the car drive past
him. 1t was going onto the track al
the time. When the car approached
the boy he threw himself away from
| it. He was about - feet from the
place where the accident occurred al
the time. The brakes of the car were
put on about four or five feet from the
crossing.
He testified that he had later talked
with Lawrence. who said that he. was
clear over by the gate post. and tn,
witness had told Lawrence that he
didn't think so and that he would not
lie for him, to which Lawrence hat
said that he did not want him to.
On cross-eXamination. Attorney
John Nelson, conducting the case fol
| the defendant asked him why ho didn'