Matthews v. Westborough

• Decision Date: 03 April 1883
• Parties: Michael Matthews v. Inhabitants of Westborough
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

134 Mass. 555

Michael Matthews v. Inhabitants of Westborough

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

April 3, 1883

Argued October 4, 1882; October 5, 1882 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Worcester. Contract to recover $ 500, alleged to have been voted to the plaintiff by the defendant town. After the former decision, reported 131 Mass. 521, the case was tried in the Superior Court, before Knowlton, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

The plaintiff testified that he was employed in 1877 by the defendant town, under the direction of the highway surveyor, who was a duly elected officer of the town, in the excavation of a gravel bank for the purpose of obtaining gravel for the repair of the highways of the town; that, while so engaged, the bank caved in, and a large amount of earth and stone fell upon him and injured him; that the place was dangerous; that he knew that such a place was dangerous to work in when he went to work for the town; that he had worked several years digging in gravel banks; that in December 1877, after the accident, he saw the selectmen, and made claim upon the town, and asked for aid or compensation for his injuries, and said he was a poor man and that he had a claim against the town; that Dr. Curtis, one of the selectmen, told him that the selectmen could do nothing for him; that he asked them to put an article in the warrant for the next town meeting, and the selectmen agreed to put an article in the warrant for the annual town meeting, to bring the matter before the town; that when the selectmen met as a committee, under the vote hereinafter mentioned referring the matter to them, he met them by appointment, and they asked how he was situated as to property, and said nothing about his claim, except to ask him if he thought the town was liable, to which he replied that he did; that he did not know what they were going to report, and did not state the amount of his claim to them; that Dr. Curtis, one of the selectmen, had helped set his leg and had attended him afterward with Dr. Harvey, who was his attending physician; that he was at both town meetings at which the matter was voted on; that after the April town meeting he went to the selectmen, and they would not pay him, and said some one objected; and that he, at this and other interviews, accepted the action of the town, and offered to take the amount voted in satisfaction of his injuries.

It was admitted that the meetings of the town at which action was taken relative to the plaintiff were duly warned and legally held.

The plaintiff also introduced the following evidence: The warrant for the town meeting held March 4, 1878, contained the following article: "To see if the town will grant aid to Michael Matthews for injuries received while in the employ of the town." On this it was voted "that the subject matter of this article be referred to the selectmen, with instructions to inquire into the facts and report to the town what they consider would be a fair compensation to Mr. Matthews for his injuries, in addition to what he has already received from the town." The selectmen took the matter into consideration, and at a town meeting held April 15, 1878, made the following report: "The selectmen having been chosen a committee at the annual March meeting to examine into and report upon the case of Michael Matthews, submit the following: We find upon examination that Michael Matthews while in the employment of the town upon the public highway, in June 1877, was injured by the falling of an earth embankment; the main and only injury received was a fracture of the thigh-bone near the joint, in consequence of which he has been subjected to much pain and expense, together with a loss of time, nearly nine months. In view of the above statement we are of the opinion that the town would do well to pay said Matthews $ 144 in addition to $ 56 already paid him, making in all $ 200, and so recommend." The report coming up for consideration at said town meeting, the report was amended by inserting the sum of $ 500 instead of $ 200, and as amended the report was adopted.

The plaintiff testified that two or three persons spoke at the town meeting.

The plaintiff objected to the introduction of any parol evidence by the defendant, contending that its liability was absolute under the votes; but the judge ruled that said report and votes were so far equivocal as to admit of parol evidence to aid in the interpretation of them, and permitted the defendant to introduce the following evidence, against the plaintiff's objection:

H. W. Weld testified that he was surveyor of highways in the defendant town, in 1877; that he cautioned the plaintiff the day before the accident not to dig under the bank so as to incur risk of its coming down; that he cautioned the plaintiff several times before about digging under such banks, and cited as an instance a different bank from that where the accident happened, but similar to it and composed of similar material; that he paid Mathews $ 56, by direction of the selectmen, as the other workmen were paid, and kept his name on the list of workmen for six weeks, when his gang ceased work.

Moses Bombat testified that he was at work with the plaintiff at the time of the accident; that he told the plaintiff the day before and on the morning of the accident that he was picking under the bank too far; and that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was engaged in picking under the bank.

W. R. Gould testified that he was one of the selectmen in 1877; that the plaintiff came to him as such, and said he thought the town ought to do something to aid him in his expenses and sickness; that he had been a resident of the town for many years, and had paid taxes; that he told the plaintiff "we had already given him $ 56 without any authority;" that he claimed that as a reason why the town should do more; that at the meeting of the selectmen before the March meeting the plaintiff came before them and made a request, similar to that which he had made before, that the town should assist him; that "we told him that we had no authority, but would put it in the warrant and let the town do as they saw fit;" that, after the March meeting, the selectmen met him and questioned him about his circumstances; thought they told him they would make it up to $ 200; that he never asked for compensation, and never said he had a claim on the town; that he was at the town meeting in April, and one Bowes made a motion to raise the amount; that no one else made any remarks; that Bowes, in supporting his motion, said that the plaintiff was a respectable man, a good citizen, and it was easier for the town to pay than for him to get along without it. On cross-examination, the witness testified that he knew that the town could not legally vote a gratuity.

Dr Curtis testified to the same effect as Gould; and further testified that the plaintiff, in his conversations with the selectmen prior to the March town meeting, said that it was a dangerous place where the town put him to work; that, both prior to and after the town meeting, he instanced the case of a man in Worcester who had recovered of the city for injuries resulting from the caving in of a sewer, and he thought his case was like that; that Bowes, at the April meeting, thought the...