Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1889-05-16
CUMBERLAND COURTS.
THE GLASSBLOWERS' CASE
GOES OVER.
DisOrderIy Houses and other
Minor Business occupy the
Attention of the Court.
WEDNESDAY MORNING.


there was a bit of spice between coun-
sci during this pastime. The testimony
of good natured contractor Downey
made some fun. Peter Schapelli, dry
trencher, and others testified to prove
that the lights were on the mound of
dirt on the nght in question.
The defense rested and the plaintiff
began II sur-rebuttal.
Henry Cotton was place on the
stand again. but his evidence was OBJ
jected to, Judge Pancoast then wished
to introduce newly found evidence
which had been taken before Master
in Chancery II. s. Alvord. The ad
mission Of this was stoutly resisted,
and it was not admitted. 1t WAS the
deposition of an absent witness,
Edward Wymans, who was aged, in
firm and sick.
The plaintiffs case here rested and
court adjourned till 2 O'Clock.
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON.
The case of Cotton VS.. Keighly, in
its wearisome length had developed
that there was more of dead earnest
ness in the contest for $4,000 damages
than at first appeared at its commence
ment. The first thought was that it
was mere trickey affair, without much
ground for reasonable claim for
damages. 1t was proven that Mr.. Cot
ton had fallen into ditch on Deem
ber 31st, 1885, dug in constructing the
water works of Vineland, and that he
had been badly injured and disabled
by that fall. 1t was proven that Mr..
Keighly had constructed, through con-
tractors, to be sure, the water works
system of that place. The jury had
been empaneled yesterday morning
and only finished listening to the wit
nesses with the close of the morning. s
session to day.
When Court convened this afternoon
it was we'll known that there was to be
a big legal battle between Lawyers
Potter of this city and Pancoast of
Camden, for the capture or retention
of the big prize of $4,000 damages
asked by the plaintiff.
The opening for the plaintiff was be-
gun by the frey Berault who general
lied the case and the evidence. He
seemed to score a point when he as
serted that Mr.. Keighly had a 'bo-
nanza"; "he was president, secretary,
high-cock- a-lorum, all within himself;
he was the sole owner and proprietor
of the Vineland system OF water works,
and had big thing"
Berault's remarks evidently sharp
ened the intensity of the defence and
when Col. Potter arose to reply his
studied calmness and measured SEN
tences indicated that he was armed
cap-a-pie and meant sturdy work.
He declared that of all the 5000
population of Vineland this man
this particular plaintiff the only
one who had been injured in the con-
struction of these waterworks. and
said he ''it was a significant circum-
stance that this particular plaintiff had
at intervals of a month been twice in
jured; once by falling into ditch at
9th and Montrose streets, and month
afterward, not satisfied with this, took
occasion to fall over some water pipes
strewn along Montrose street.
Under the Colonels skilful showing,
the bonanza" of Mr.. Keighly ap-
peared as very young rooster, not
yet Matched. He characterized it as
''in embryo" and Mr.. Keighly as a
public benefactor.
Addressing the court, he said if the
ditch digged had been dug under col
or of the authority of the Borough as
it was and injury had resulted to Mr..
Cotton, Mr.. Keighly-the work not
being public nuisance-was not
liable. Damages could not be recov-
cred but in two instances-one, where
culverts had been open in such way
as to become a nuisance by negligence
of authorities; the other was that if
railroad companies who are held to
have such high degree of care and
insight as to insure the safety of its
passengers. This case being tried,
comes under neither of these cate
gories.
Col. Potter expounded the law points
concerning the case. Judge Pancoast
followed and began by saying he had
not much time and he should try to be
brief.
He said this old man, the plaintiff,
was put IN danger and suffered from the
acts OF this defendant, and according
to the old Mosaic law of an eye for an
eye, and a tooth for tooth, the defend
ant was in danger, as stated by the