Desautelle v. Nasonville Woolen Co.

The evidence shows that the defendant corporation was guilty of negligence in operating its mill without providing a suitable person to supervise the regulation of the water power at a time when it had reason to know that the flow of the river would be irregular, and that the injury to the plaintiff was the result of this negligence; and the damages assessed by the jury do not seem to be excessive.

The motion to set aside the verdict and direct a new trial was therefore properly denied, and the exception to that ruling is overruled.

The defendant excepts also to certain portions of the judge’s…