Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-08-30
COMMON PLEAS COURT.

Two Cases Of Local Interest.
BEFORE JUDGE PATTERSON.
Inquirer printing aud publishing COM
pany Va. Rev. II. s. Rice, D. Rine Hertz,
y. 8. Rice, A. W. Zug and Fl. F. Hermes
This was an action to recover the amount
of STATS. From plaintiffs testimony it
appeared that in 1881 the defendants
were officers of the Lancaster county
mutual aid society, fire insurance COM
pany. Hermes, who was the general agent,
at a meeting of the directors, was authOriz
ed to have job printing done, which he did.
A charter was granted to the company,
but before it was recorded or they had
written any policies, the company
went out of existence, owing to
the exposure made at that time
of tho management of life insurance COM
panies. 1t was proven that the plaintiffs
printed lOtOf blanks and delivered them
to the company. Major Fasnacht, deputy
recorder, testified that the charter had
never been recorded. The counsel for the
plaintiff alleged that as the charter was
not recorded, the act Of Assembly author
izing the granting of charters had not
been complied with and this was no cor
poration the individual members of the
society would then have to be held liable.
The records of the court of Dauphin cOun.
ty were offered to show that the company
had been dissolved.
The defense asked for non suit on the
ground that the defendants were sued as
individuals. They claimed that it must
be shown that the defendants Individually
contracted for the printing before they
could be held liable, and that they author.
lied Hermes to have the printing done.
The court refused to grant the non suit
The defense was that as the defendants did
not individually order the printing or
authorize it, they cannot be he'd liable for
the bill, contracted by Hermes, as agent
for the company.
After some testimony had been heard
for the defence, the court ordered verdict
to be taken in favor of the plaintiff for
$196.71, and that rule be granted to show
cause why judgment should not be entered
in favor of the defendant non obstante
veredicto.
BEFORE JUDGE LIVINGSTON.
J. Shuman Kline aud Mary K Kline, his
wife, in right of said Mary X. Kline, for
merly Mary Kissinger, and Harry Kissin
ger. by his mother, Mary X. Kline, VS.. the
city of Lancaster. This is an action to
damages for the loss of husband
and father, which was caused, as is al
legged, by the neglect on the part of the city
to properly construct and keep in repair
a certain alley gutter at Cherry and
Orange streets.
After the jury was sworn the defense
raised the question as to the right of the
plaintiff to proceed further In this action
as the case had been tried before, and upon
judgment being entered for plaintiff the
supreme court had returned it quOd judic
ium reverster without awarding venire
facias de novo and further that the act of
1713, under which plaintiffs claim to have
the action, was not applicable to
this case, as the action did not belong to
the class referred to by said act.
The court suggested that the only plea
Df not guilty was probably insu fficient.
The defendant then filed special plea
setting forth the action Of the supreme
court and praying Judgment in favor of
the defense. The plaintiff demurred to
plea and was joined in it by the defence.
The court heard the argument and sus.
tained the demurrer, ,overruling the special
plea.
The plaintiff then opened their testimony
to show that Henry NJ. Kissin-
ger, now deceased, who was the husband
Of plaintiff, was teamster in the employ
)f Balmer q Co., who delivered goods |
For the Pennsylvania railroad company on |
July %, 1878. On that day be was
engaged hauling boxes filled with tobacco
rom the freight depot to the warehouse |
If Skiles & Fry, opposite the Presbyterian |
,hurch in Cherry alley. He was seated |
ID the ton of the front box and in that
,Osltion attempted to cross the gutter at |
Cherry alley. While driving carefully, as 10 !
'lleged, he having passed safely over the
utter before on that day, he was jostled |
rom his seat by the improper construc-
ion of the gutter, it being from |
5 to 18 inches in depth he
ell astride the tongue of the |
wagon and whilst in that position en-.
to recover control of the horses |
q order to stop them the animals became |
and Kissinger was thrown |
lnder the wagon, the wheels of which |
'assed over him, injuring him 50 severely
hat he died in a few days. 1t is alleged
hat the gutter was constructed in 1868 by
he city, and plaintiffs complains that it
Vas improperly arranged, 90 as to make it
angerous fOr::driving over they now seek
o make the city liable for the result OF
he alleged neglect, which it is claimed
aused the death of the deceased.
A large number of witnesses were called
0 prove these facts. |
Jurors Discharged.
As no other jurors except those in the |
lissinger case were needed the others |
'ere discharged before noon to day. /