The New Bloomfield, Pa. times. (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1877-188?, 1880-02-24
[Reported On onas. H. SMILEY, Esq. !


Conrt Proceedings. = On Wednesday of
last week, the 18th inst, an interesting
case was argued before Judge Bucher, in
the Court House.
Some time since the borough authori-
ties of Bloomfield contracted for the
building of an engine house on the
vacant lot forming the South East cor
ner of the public square. AT the instance
of Hon. g. j. II. M M'Intire, who is the
owner of an adjoining lot, an injunction
was issued by Judge Junkin to restrain
the Borough authorities from the erec-
tion of the building. The position taken
by the plf., was, that the lot upon which
the proposed building was to be erected,
had been dedicated to the public for the
location of a market house, and that the
authorities had no right to pervert it
from the particular purpose of its dedi-
cation. Upon the other side it was con-
tended that the dedication was to the
Borough of Bloomfield; the fee vested
in the corporation and If there was no
necessity for the erection of market
house that the Borough was not COM
PEELED to hold it as vacant and value
less lot but that they could use 1t for
such purpose as they saw proper until
the necessity for the erection of mar
ket house became apparent. Very able
and exhaustive arguments were made
by the counsel on both sides. His
Honor holds the case over for considera-
ton and will file his opinion hereafter.
Seibert and M'Intire for plff. Barnett
and Sponsler for deft.
On the same day his Honor Judge
Bucher read an opinion upon the re-
served point in the case of Spangler vs..
The Borough of Bloomfield. 1t will be
remembered that in this case the de-
fendant who was stranger, fell into an
excavation about 81 feet deep on the
premises of DIR. Sweeney on the South
west corner of the public square on the
2nd of March, 1878, by which he receiv-
ed very severe injuries. The pavement
where the accident occurred was at that
time of the required width, and in good
condition, but there was no guard or
barrier to prevent persons from falling
over. Upon the trial of the case 1t was
argued that there was no negligence on
the part of the Borough, because the ex-
cavation was on private ground and 1T
would have been trespass to have invad-
ed private premises to erect guard or
railing, while TO have placed 1t within
the required width of the pavement
would have been to expose the Borough
to an action for damages by any person
WHO ullBuU nave Dtcu luJuIeu IHoIeOu'
The Jury were instructed that 1t was
the duty of the Borough to have pro-
tected the side walk, but the question
whether it was the duty of the Borough
authorities under the circumstances to
place guard or barrier there for the
protection of the traveller using the pave
ment, and whether they were guilty of
negligence in not doing so was reserved
point of law for the judgment of the
Court. Under the instructions, the jury
found verdict of $500 for Plaintiff. A
motion was made for new trial. Upon
the reserved point his Honor in an elab-
crate and very careful opinion decides
that under the circumstances in this case,
the Borough was guilty of negligence in
permitting the pavement to be unpro-
tected by guards or barriers, and over
rules the motion for q new trial, and
directs judgment to be entered upon the
verdict.