Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-01-12
THE HIGHEST OPINIONS.
Why the Supreme Court Ruled as it Did
in the Thompson Reiber OIL Gambling
Case-Other Interesting Views Of Legal
Weipbt and Wortb.

Case-Other Interesting Views of Legal
Weight and Worth.
The popular impression went abroad on Mon
| day. when the Supreme Court handed down its
decision in the lThompson-R alleged oil
| gambling suit, that it was favorable to the oil
brokers and spectators and their business.
| This, it seems, was an important error on the
part of the newspapers or the lawyers or both.
| Judge Paxson, who handed down the opinion,
really decided nothing as to the dement's of the
| case, but only held that the question covering
the same ought not to have been taken from the
jury by Court of Common Pleas No. of ALE
gheny county. His opinion is:
I'VE think it was an error to withdraw this
case from the jury. 1tmay be that the purchase
OF oil was gambling transaction, and that the
jury might have found it SO. But the case
depended upon the oral testimony, and that
was for the jury. Thelearned Judge instructed
them that under all the evidence in the case
your verdict must be for the defendant This
withdrew from the jury the question of the
credibility Of the witnesses. 1t is true the
testimony tending to show that this was
gambling transaction came from the plaintiff
himself At the same time if as the plaintiff
testified this was a bona fide purchase of oil
and the only reason why a full delivery was not
made, was that such delivery was prevented by
the positive instruction of the defendant the
next morning, to sell the oil for cash, and the
sale in pursuance of such instructions to the
same party from whom the plaintiff had bought
it, there was question left for the jury. Had
the instruction of the court been that If the
jury believed from the evidence that there was
no delivery, and no intended delivery, of the
oil, but that it was mere sale upon margin
with intent to settle for differences, the case
would have been free from difficulty. AS it
stands, we think the question of its being
wagering transaction should have been left to
the jury
Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo
awarded.
Among the other more or less important
opinions was the opinion of Justice Hand on
the appeal of the city of Pittsburg against the
Philadelphia Gas Company. The question in
this case is whether the gas pipes of the de-
fendant company laid in the streets are subject
to taxation for city purposes, as lands or capi-
tai stock 1t was claimed that because the city
had authority under the act of lS4l to assess
taxes on all descriptions OF property made tax
able for State purposes, that the assessments
OF these gas pipes was an assessment OF capital
stock.
Justice Hand holds that this act conflicts wi h
the system of taxation adopted by the Com
monwealth since the act of lS4l, and says that
the lower court very properly dismissed that
part of the case with the remark that the bill
and answer disclose no taxation OF the capital
stock as such. The other part OF the case in
which it was held that the pipes were the pub
lie works of the corporation, is commented on
briefly by Justice Hand He says it is difficult
to define public works and a public corpora
ton, but says it is clear that they have "emi- |
nent domain" The judgment of the lower |
court is affirmed
Justice Green's opinion on B. VOLTS appeal
from the decree of the Orphans Court was |
among the number received yesterday, This |
case involved the sale of one.fifth interest of |
Sunny Slope" which was sold by the Sheriff |
on September 4, 1875, and the deed acknowl- |
edged February "a 1877. Mrs. Martha Smith, |
the mother of Zautzinger Smith, was the pur-
purchase money was s., 100. 1t was claimed
that the property belonged to him by virtue of
resulting trust. To make out this claim it
was alleged that Mrs. Smith borrowed 81, 500
upon note signed by her son to pay off a
judgment, and that this money was charged as
an advancement by Mrs. Smith against her son.
money.
The lower Court decided that a resulting
trust was created. Justice Green says that in
point Of fact the money belonged to Mrs:
the whole amount s., ,S75 so, including $500 not
In the consideration charged to ZautZinger
Smith. The payment is held by Justice Green
not to be a judgment to Zautzinger Smith but
to Miller to whom the note was made, and
could not operate as an advance
ment. When the property was sold by the
Sheriff it was purchased by Mrs. Smith and
paid for by her own money, the decree of the
lower Court is therefore reversed and the
record returned for further proceedings.
Justice Williams handed down the opinion in
the case of McFall against the McKeesport and
Ice Company, in which a
lien was involved. The claim was
for material furnished for the erection of an
on the order of w. ]. McMasters.
The defendants denied that McMasters was a
and alleged that he was a sub-con-
tractor under A. Inskup, one of the members
of the corporation. to whom the erection of the
building had beer let The plaintiffs replied
that the contract with Inskup was not bona
fde, but was device by means of which the
persons named in the bill as owners sought to
charge the corporation $4,000 for contract
which was being filled for 81, 700. The point
was that the plaintiffs right to a lien depended
on whether McMasters' contract was in fact
with Inskup only or with all the owners of the |
Justice Williams says it was with
all the owners. and therefore reverses the de- |
,ision of the lower court and orders a new
.rial.,
The other opinions received were of minor
|