Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-01-21
Similar Verdict In Case of
Readfield Man Against Mo-
torist For killing of Pet Dog
jury Out Three Hours Be.
fore Making Finding In Case
Against Harry A. Jones of
Gardiner

A verdict for the defendant was re-
turned at 2.15 Wednesday afternoon
by the jury at the Kennebec county
superior court in the case of Lincoln
Wllllams VS.. Harry A. Jones, q case
which was started on Tuesday morn
ing and in which the evidence had
been completed Tuesday night. Ar
guments Of the two lawyers and the
charge of Judge William H. Fisher
took until about Ills Thursday
morning. at which time the jury re-
tired. They were served their din
ners at noon in the jury room and
the verdict was returned about Is
minutes after court convened in the
afternoon.
A similar verdict was brought in
IN the case of Nelson Gordon If
Readfield VS.. Harry Goldberg of
Gardiner in which the plaintiff sued
for 500 punitive damages, alleging
that the defendant through gross and
wanton recklessness in the manner in
which he operated his automobile so
injured small collie dog belonging
70 the plaintiff that 1t was necessary
to have it killed. Mr.. Gordon was
represented by Attorney w. Tudor
Gardiner of the firm of Andrews, Nell
son d Gardiner, and Mr.. Goldberg by
Attorney Herbert e. Locke of the
firm Of Pattangall, Locke & Perkins.
Wednesday Case
Nelson T. Gordon of Readfield. the
plaintiff, was first put upon the
stand. He testified that on the aft
ernoon of September IA, 1925, he was
at work in his store in Readfield
when he was notified by, telephone
that his dog had been hit by an
automobile. The animal was soon
brought to the store. injured so bad
iy that he got a man to shoot it. The
dog was about five months old and
FOR four months had been a family
pet. When asked to put a cash value
on the dog he declared that to be a
very hard thing to do, as it was a
pet Of the children and he did not be-
lieve they could have been more
deeply grieved if it had been one of
their number who was hurt.
Mrs. Louise Childs, whose hus-
band keeps store a short distance
from that of Mr.. Gordon, stated that
she was in front of her husbands
store at the time of the accident and
saw the occurrence. According to
her story an automobile containing
the Gordon children went by and a
oAAol DGll1Ilu Tie car WAS
the dog, who was trying to overtake
them. The dog was on its right side
of the road. The automobile which
hit the dog came along behind the
dog at speed Of from Is to- 80 miles
an hour and when almost upon it,
the dog swerved diagonally across the
road and the automobile was also
turned the same way to follow 1t.
After hitting the dog the car slowed
down until opposite her and then the
driver. seeing her, asked If it was her
dog. She did not answer as she was
busy taking the registration number
of the machine and they continued
to drive along, gaining speed as they
did so.
Willis Brown, who was at that
time a clerk in the Gordon store, wit
messed the accident and testified sub
the same. e.,
The Defense
In defense, Harry Goldberg and his
father, Max Goldberg, stated that
they were driving along when they
saw the dog, which was walking in
front of their car. Approaching 1t
Harry steered the car slightly to the
left. Suddenly the dog swerved
sharply and broke into a run, the
change of direction taking him in
front Of the automobile. In an at
tempt to avoid hitting him, Harry
also turned sharply to the left but
was unable to keep from running
over the animal. He stopped the car,
backed up short distance to see if
it was badly injured and then, see
ing Mrs. Childs, drove along, slowing
down as he approached her. He
asked her if it was her dog, but re-
ceiving no reply, and from the con-