Bremner v. Inhabitants of Newcastle

• Decision Date: 15 April 1891
• Citation: 83 Me. 415,22 A. 382
• Parties: BREMNER v. INHABITANTS OF NEWCASTLE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

22 A. 382

83 Me. 415

BREMNER

v. INHABITANTS OF NEWCASTLE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 15, 1891.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Lincoln county.

This was an action to recover damages sustained by plaintiff through a defective highway. The jury returned a verdict of $200 for the plaintiff. Affirmed.

L. M. Staples, for plaintiff.

W. H. Hilton, for defendants.

LIBBEY, J. This is an action against the defendant town to recover damages alleged to have been received by a defect in a highway in said town. The alleged defect was the position of a plank at the Newcastle end of the bridge across the river between that town and Damariscotta. One issue involved in the case was whether the plank rendered the way unsafe for travelers.

The plaintiff called one Dexter Sanborn as a witness, who, after describing the position of the plank, was asked by plaintiff's counsel, against the objection of the defendant, this question: "In passing from the Newcastle side on to that bridge, what effect did it have upon your carriage?" The question was admitted, and the witness answered: "Go quick enough, and it would yank you some." He was further asked: "Didn't you break a spring there?" to which he was permitted to answer, under' defendants' objection: "I broke a spring going over that plank." He was further asked: "What kind of a carriage was it this spring was broken on?" To this objection was made, but it was admitted, and the witness answered: "A hack. I was driving the hack."

We think this was error. This court has quite recently held that such evidence in this class of cases is not competent. The practice in this state has been in accordance with this rule. Branch v. Libbey, 78 Me. 321, 5 Atl. Rep. 71, and cases cited.

The same rule prevails in Massachusetts. See cases cited in Branch v. Libbey, supra; and in New Hampshire, Hubbard v. Concord, 35 N. H. 52.

We are aware that courts in some other jurisdictions hold this class of evidence competent, but we think our rule is wise, and we must adhere to it.

Exceptions sustained.

PETERS, C. J., and WALTON, VIRGIN, HASKELL, and WHITEHOUSE, JJ., concurred.