The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-01-16

Judgments.

Supreme Court in Baac-Chief Justice THOMPSON
and Judges Agnetc, Sharsloood, and Williams.
The following judgments were entered this morn
ing-
Mason VS.. Kane. Error to the Common Pleas OF
Fayette county. Judgment reversed, and v. (. d. n.
Clarke & Breading VS.. Eli Cope. Error to the
Common Pleas of Fayette county. Judgment re-
versed, and v. +. d. n. awarded.
In the matter OF the opening OF Delaware avenue
from Davis to Catharine street. Appeal from the
Quarter Sessions OF Philadelphia. In this case the
jury awarding damages 70 the owner owners Of pre- property
altered by this opening OF the avenue overruled the
report, and made the simple entry "Report set
aside," without assigning what exceptions were
sustained. This the Supreme Court adiudge to be
error, and therefore the order was reversed and a
procedendo awarded.
SharswOod, J.:-
Miller VS.. Schnoor. Appeal from the Common
Pleas Of Butler county. Decree affirmed and appeal
Wood, Administrator vs. Gammat Error to
Common Pleas Of Fayette county. Judgment af-
nrmed.
Orr VS.. Kelly. Appeal from the District Court of
Negey VS.. Lindsay. Error TO Common Pleas of
Allegheny county. Judgment reversed and I. d. H.
COrken vs. Lewis. Appeal from the Common
Pleas OF Jefferson county. Decree reversed and
record remitted for further proceedings.
Thompson, G. J.-Dickerson, ct al, vs.. Henry B.
Allen, ct al Appeal from Nisi Prius Injunction
dissolved, and appeal dismissed at costs OF appel
Mnrtene VS.. Hagen. Appeal from Nlsl rrius.
Injunction continued.
A Good Precedent.
Court of Quarter SesSiOHs-JtSdge ParsOn.
Judge Paxson this morning delivered the follow
ing, which at present is OF special INTEREST,"
This is a rule 10 show cause why judgment en-.
tered In suit upon aforletted recognzance should
not be stricken OF or modified.
The form OF this rule is Objectionable II we were
TO make itabsoute the entry upon our record would
be insensible II two remedies are sought OF an in
consistent character there should be two rules in-
stead OF combining them In one rule, in the alter
We can only strike or a judgment for some defect
appearing upon the face or The record or ior fraud
seS sXSs Sst ~ .s Sase s "
1T remains ro consider the motion TO mod1Y tne
judgment The defendant became ball Tor one Ed
ward Parr, charged with receiving stolen goods.
Parr failed to appear his recognzance was Ioreleed
on the last day OF September Term, 1859, and a
bench warrant Issued, under which he was Drought
In, and upon the 18th OF October 1869, one William
Pollock became bail Parr again failed TO appear
and has never been tried Suit was entered against
the above defendant upon his recognizance, and
Judgment obtained on May 81. 1870, for $1,000. On
$50 rnle lT was obtained to show cause why the
Judgment should not be opened, aud forfeiture
stricken OIL, which rule was discharged october
The present rule was obtained January 7, 1871. n
A party who asks to be relieved from the enecl OF
asjudgment should be prompt in his application to
the court 1t will not DO TO sleep upon his rights
and this rule is as applicable in the criminal as In
the civil side OF the court In this case the defen-
dant has already had a hearing upon the rule to
open the judgment and permit the forfeiture IL IS
aifcult to see why the relief Low asked might not
have heen given upon that rule, had the defendant
been entitled to it and in any event said rule cond
have been moulded TO the case. II auy further
rule were necessary, it should have been taken
promptly. -, .o.,no, y, +bts
It is a Strange objection to the granting OF thls
Application that Parr has fled and the common
wealth has never been able 10 try him. Ihe oail Is
in no condition 10 ask favors while ms principal IS
fugitye liz is true new bail was entered after the
forfeiture, but that does not help TINS defendant
That was not his act and he cannot take advantage
Of IN In the case OF fugitive from justice we do
rot feel disposed TO relieve any on, one who stands
Tor criminals should understand that II means some-
thing. ,,
The rule is discharged. cl w
liability for Freisht. a. srl
Nisi Pgius-Judge SharsDO0d
Among the cases called for trial on the list this
morning was that OF Root Rust, OF New York, VS..
The OH Creek and Allegheny River Railroad Com
napy This is the test case Involving the question OF
the liability Of the railroad 10 the New York Oil
| merchants for Overcharges OF freight made by the
company during the years 1885, 1867, and 1855. The