Posted by stew - Tue, Feb 3, 2009

Gazette & Courier - Monday, August 30, 1875
Court record

The third week of the superior court was continued at 4 o’clock p.m. Mon., at which time the arguments were made on the town case of Joel R. Davenport vs. the Inhabitants of Coleraine, The accident, as alleged by the plaintiff in this action, occurred on the highway in the town of Coleraine, near the house of Arthur A. Smith, in Feb. 1873. At the time named, the ground was covered by a heavy body of snow, and on the day of the alleged injury, was thawing. The plaintiff was drawing wood, and had on his sled at the time, 180 ft. of green wood - a very heavy load.

The plaintiff says he was sitting upon the load of wood, driving with due care, and by reason of a defect in the highway - which consisted of a deep "cradle hole", and also a sidling condition of the road - his load was overturned, falling upon and injuring him. To this the town replied that the plaintiff was not using due care, and in fact he did not receive the alleged injury claimed, in the manner as stated.

Two boys, who saw the occurrence, testified that the plaintiff stopped his team, and after examining the load, stepped upon the rave of the sled, and turned to the right and started up, upon which his load was overturned. To another party, who came up shortly after, the plaintiff stated that he was not hurt. The testimony of other witnesses, who examined the track of the runner in the snow, went to show that the boys’ story was true, and that the plaintiff was mistaken in keeping the road, and his getting off the hard track and his endeavor to drive back into it, occasioned the overturn.

The defense also argued that the plaintiff had no claim against the town, and never thought of such a thing himself for over a year after the accident; and in proof of this theory, they showed that the plaintiff said, some time ago, he should have to ask the town for pay for his sled stakes; and again, about a year after, he made a demand on the Selectmen for $100, for injury to his chest or side, while his claim now was for injury to his leg or hip.

The court ruled that unless the defect was the sole cause of the accident, the town was not liable. Verdict for the defendants. S.T. Field for pl’ff.; D. Aiken for defense.

Lyman J. Wait vs. Justin Thayer et al. - This action was brought to recover the payment of a promissory note held by the plaintiff of Greenfield, dated Nov. 1, 1872, for $1000, and signed by S.F. Warner, with the endorsement of Thayer, Sargent & Co. of Northampton. The real defendant, however, in the present action being Gen. Luke Lyman of the latter town, who, as well as Warner, composed the company of the endorsing firm...The whole case was narrowed to the single question of the circumstances under which the note was taken; it being conceded by all parties that the proceeds were used for Warner’s private benefit...Verdict for plaintiff, amount $1281.67...

Mary M. Hillman vs. the Inhabitants of Charlemont - This was an action of tort for injuries received on the highway leading from Heath Center, to what is known as the old center of the town of Charlemont, and occurred Aug. 14, 1874. The injury was received by the horse running away, and the plaintiff being thrown from the wagon, at a steep and rocky portion of the road. The injury in this case was real, the fact not being questioned by the town, and no evidence was needed of severity or permanency, the only fact to be tried was as to the liability of the town.

The plaintiff of course, made the usual allegations of want of repair or defects in the highway, and the due care used by her; while the defendants rested their case on the grounds - first, that the road was safe and convenient; second, want of due care; and third, loss of control and the vicious habits of the horse...The jury evidently came to the conclusion that the town was liable, and being liable, gave a verdict to the full amount asked. ..

The large damages given occasioned general surprise, however, from the fact that the plaintiff was understood to be willing to settle with the town before the trial for $1500. The amount will be quite an item in the future taxes of Charlemont, already very heavy (some 3%), while to these must be added a large sum on a new bridge for which the town is to pay. The present verdict is for $5000, to which heavy cost must also be added...

The following cases were disposed of without trial: Simon L. Shattuck et al. vs. John Haggerty - Judgment for plaintiff, amount $114. Frank T. Swan vs. Charles L. Sawyer et al. - Judgment on award of referees, for plaintiff; amount $1720. L. Johnson vs. Harding G. Woodard - Discontinued and settled out of court. Henry C. Willard et al. vs. Elijah Stratton - Judgment for plaintiff, amount $88. James Newton vs. Walter A. Lee - Judgment for plaintiff, amount $217.

Parker Wise et al. vs. David W. Goss - Judgment for plaintiff, amount $60. Solomon O. Poole vs. Solomon Poole - Discontinued and settled out of court. Mary Joslyn vs. William B. Templeton, app’t. - Discontinued and settled out of court. Hezekiah Andrews vs. George P. Stearns - Action dismissed. Rodney Hunt Machine Co. vs. Rodney Hunt et als. - Judgment on award of referee.

The case of Chandler A. Vincent vs. the Inhabitants of Rowe has been on trial during the last two days of the week, and will be given to the jury today. The action is one of contract, to recover for building a road in said town. The plaintiff claims that he took the piece of road to build, according to certain conditions as to time, etc.; that he performed his part of the contract and now wants his pay therefor. The town deny the claim, alleging that the conditions were not complied with, by which a good winter road was to be made by a certain date, and the same afterward completed for acceptance by another fixed date...

The contract was all oral, and it required a large number of witnesses to ascertain what it was, and whether it had been executed to the satisfaction of all people living in that vicinity. The only remaining cases are those of Edward A. Robbins vs. John T. Fitch et al.; and John Butterworth vs. S.W. Hall et al. and Trustee; but the trials to be had before the Judge will take the most of the week. The term will be the largest for years.
 

Subjects: Accidents, Animals / Reptiles, Bridges, Business Enterprises, Businesspeople, Charlemont (MA), Children, Coleraine [now Colrain] (MA), Courts, Economics, Government, Greenfield (MA), Hampshire / Hampden Counties, Horses, Households, Law and Lawyers, Orange (MA), Roads, Transportation, Trees, Weather, Women, Work, Heath (MA), Rowe (MA)