Evening journal., 1889-05-24
4AST EDITION
The SUPERIOR couRT.
ae Stewart Case Now in the Hands of
the jury.

@N-f'I
the jury.
At yesterday afternoons session Of the
lperior Court, Senator George Gray,
'livered his argument to the jury, for
le defence in the George B. Stewart
image case against the p, w. & B. r.
He concluded at 4. 80 o'clock. Albert
Unstable, Esq. then delivered the clos
G argument for the..plsintiff speaking,
ltil $40 o'clock. Court then adjourned.
At this mornings session of court
nief Justice Comegys delivered the
large to the jury, occupying eighteen
inutes in doing so. After reviewing
4 e testimony of both sides and canlng
tcntion to its conflicting character, he
aid that in all such cases it was the
@,ovince and duty of the jury to lnsti-
lite q mental balance, and in It weigh
@le evidence on both sides, rendering
#srdict to the side which seemed to have
H. preponderance of proof. Other
H3ints made by the chief justice were as
SLOWS: 1t is a legal duty, impera-
I've on employers, to provide
safe place for their employees TO
ork. If there is sufficient proof that
here was a warning given and the plain
IF did not avail himself of it, then the
efendant is not liable. If the plaintiff
ould have escaped danger by using
leans in reach provided to avert it then
G contributed to his calamity and can
ot recover. If the jury believe that he
i'd not receive warning in time he is en-
tied to recover. In liability Of an acci
lent through the means of a servants
|arelessness, the carelessness must be
roved by creditable witnesses. Some con
dered the charge unfavorable to the
laintiff
The jury retired at 1920 o'clock.
At 2. 30 o'clock the jury was still out,
nd it is likely will not agree.
Samuel Fl. Baynard testified to the
enuineness of the signature of Alexan-
er G. Taylor, ON deed.
At the request of Edward G. Bradford,
..sq., the cases of George A. Richardson,
or the use of Catharine E. Stevens VS..
he United States Foreign and Domestic
'ruit Company, and Calvin A. Stevens
or the use of Catharine E. Stevens vs.
he same, were marked for trial at the
.eptember term. Senator Gray is coun-
el for the defendants.
The cass of P. Reuhl & Co., VS.. Will
lam S. Mitchell was then taken up.
his case vas tried at the last term of
curt but the jury disagreed Hoffecker
nd Hoffecker are counsel for the plain
if and Bradford and Vandegrift for the
defendants. The action is to recover the
ace and interest Of two notes given by
he plaintiff, as a member of the firm Of
3aird & Mitchell. The defence claimed
hat Mitchell was not member of the
irm at the date the notes were given.
The plaintiff claimed $257 50, principal
md interest. Henry Baird and
William B. Haddock were the witnesses
'or the plaintiff. The following were the
witnesses for the defence:
Arthur w. Brown testified that he was
igent for the Bradstreet Company, and
lad been notified by them of the dissolu-
ion of the firm of Baird g. Mitchell.
Frank E. Geddling testified that he
knew that the firm of Baird & Mitchell
vas dissolved in 1885, and that Mr.
Baird moved to Fourth and Shipley
streets and his signs about that place
lid not contain the name of Baird &
John M. Whiteford
he business manager of the Every
Evening testified that a notice Of
5he dissolution of the firm of Baird &
was published in the Every
Evening on April IS and 90, 1885, and
that Baird would collect all debts due
the firm.
J. H. Hoffecker, Esq, then addressed
his argument to the jury, after which
the jury retired.
Court then adjourned until o'clock.
At 2.30 o'clock the jury rendered YER
dict for tie defendant