Daily Republican., 1888-02-15
IN the SECOND DEGREE.
The Jury Render . Verdict In the j Ohm.
hon oass Yesterday Ansrsoon-Iha
suIt Against tue Ctr.

Ahe Suty heSbuof Nofuict ID tno oub- .
aon oass Yesterday Arisrsoon-Ihe
sait against tho OitJ.
As loon as court resum ed yeeterdRy
afternoon the case OF CatheIla ae Harri-
gan vs. the Mayor and Ooupcil Of VIII
mington Was resu med, and Building
Insr 9 ,tor Dillon recalled. He was cub.
jeoted to . long crosL-sxaminstion by
Mr Ball, In which map of the locslisy
was used.
The jury in the case of Franklin u.
johnson came in at 3.18 O'Clock with q
verdict Of guilty OF murder In the SEQ
ond degree. They wero pollci nj the
request OF Mr.. Conrad, and each one
answered that it was his verdict.
The case on trial WAS then resumed, Z,
and the cross examination OF Patrick
Dillon ontinued. When Mr.. Ball con-
cluded, Mr.. Bird asked the witness sew
erRl questions on Redirect exAminA-
tiou.
Philip Plunkett testified that he re-
sides In this city At Front and R1dney
streets, and has lived there thiriy-two
years. He Is familiar with the ground
in the vicinity OF Front aud Broome
etreets, and recollected q stream OF wa.
ter that some years crossed Front street
near Adams, little further east than
where the oulvert now is.
Daniel " Stewart testified that he re.
sides ON West Font street, about two
squares from the plaintiff. Hekas
resided In that nelRhborhood about 40
ears, and is we'll acquainted with the
formation OF the ground In that vlcin-
lily. The witness then described tbs
natural water course, and oorroborated
the testimony OF the previous with esses
| James Bradford testified that he has
resldet In this city tiace 1870. He
owns some property ON Adams street
near Front; Council me. there several
times 10 see about the trouble with the
water.
Mr.. Bird inquired, "Was there q full
atte ndanoe Of members OF Council at
these meetInRt2" when Mr.. Bradford
replied, II think there was, as they got
dollar for each OF such meetin gs2"
At one tine the witness owned three.
quarters OF square on Adams street,
between Front and Second streets. Hs
was very much troubled with the water,
and at ore OF thsse meetings told the
members that IL they would enlarge
The sewer he would not bring suit for
damages. Several Of the MON 6era were
In favor OF this, bat the chief engineer
ISPFShNN ~ AdA BAOAbhbGu W uhNO
oeptlug sewers placed on come OF the
other streets. Nothing however was
done, and he was tod afterwards BY
the chairman OF the Street Oommittea
that they could not afford ~ do The
work at that time, rs their EppfopEl.
alton was exhausted.
The witness was cross examined q:
length by Mr.. Ball, but nothing mato
rally different TO the direct TESTING ony
Was brought out.
| Miss Mary A. Quinn testified that
she resides 81 Front and Adams streets,
and has lived there since 1888 continu
ously, with the exception OF tAe time
when her family was routed out By
hoOds Ever since the sewers were
built the people in the vicinity have
suffered from the water. She nsyer
knew OF any trouble from the water
until after the Rsed street geWer wac
built, as the bitches carried It all OF.
Prlor to last fal year there was an
inlet In front OF the plaintiffs house,
And when the city raised tha bed Of the
street the inlet wac onlai Red, but the
water would not 20 In tho inlet, and
that which did not'Iun on the Witness
house, run on TO Mrs Harlan. Her
bone has been flooded twice In seven
years to euoh an extent that they had TO
move out.
Jamsa AcGrath was ew1rr and testl.
hed that be lives At Front and Monroe
streets, and has lived there Eve yesrs.
He remembered the storm OF 1885, that
damaged the Harrigan property.
There WAS al inlet In front of his
house. At this point Mr Lore objected
to the testimony on the ground that 30
this inlet connected with tie Monroe
street sewer II did not apply TO this
case, The obj sotion was sustained and
the witness left the stand.
AT $40 O'Clock court adjourned nRtil
10 o'clock this morning.