Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-10-31
Being Argued by Leading Lawyers
Before the Supreme Court.
SOME BIG CASES UP YESTERDAY.
A Traction Company Sued for Employing
ImpOlite Conductors.
OTHER NEWS CLEANED IN THE COURTS

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex re-
Alfred Darte, District Attorney, VS. NJ
Reynolds I. P Hand ct al; appeal from
Common Pleas of Luzerne county. The suit
is one against school board Of
the Third district of Wilkesbarrit
for the alleged violation of an act of as.
sembly for the regulation of school districts
in cities of the third class. The city oi
Wilkesbarre is a city of the third class, and
in January, 1890, the directors of the several
school districts adopted formal resolutions
accepting the provisions Of the act ap.
proved May %, 1889, and on February 10,
1890, presented certified copies of these reso-
lutions in the Office of the Clerk of Quarter
Sessions of the county. The clerk refused
to receive, file or record these papers
on the ground that the act OF
May %, 1889, was unconstitutional;
whereupon a majority of the directors of the
Pleas for a mandsmus requiring the Clerk
10 file and record these papers. The man.
damus was granted and the appeal taken.
The errors charged are that the Court erred
in holding the first section of the act of May
%, 1890, to be constitutional
AN APPEAL OF THE PENNsY.
The next argument was the appeal of the
PENNSYLVANIA Company for the Insurance
of Lives from the Orphans Court. This is
the celebrated Shoenberger will case. Mr..
Shoenberger died in New York City on No
Yember u, 1889, leaving large estate. He
appointed his wife, Mrs. Alice Shoenberger,
and A. 7. Mason executors of his will rela-
tive TO that portion situated in New York,
and the Pennsylvania Company for the In
surance OF Lives, of Philadelphia, Andrew
Long, OF Pittsburg, J. NJ. Brownson, of
Pittsburg, and A. J. Hutell, Of PhiIadel-
phia, executors and trustees of that
portion in the States of Pennsyl-
vauia, Ohio, Kentucky and Illinois. The
principal pat of the estate is sit
uated In Allegheny county, consisting
of S47U, $40 80 of personally and $472. 900 of
real estate. The will was probated in New
York and ar exemplifcation was subse-
quently filed with the Register of Phlla-
delphia and with S. P. Connor, ESQ.,,
Register OF Allegheny county. Mr.. Connor,
after an inspection of the will, found that
the principal part Of the estate in Pennsyl-
vania was IN Allegheny county, and it ap-
anee tax, issued a citation upon the executors
10 show why they should not appear before
him and take out letters. Having found
from the testimony adduced at the hearing
that the principal part of the estate was in
this county, the Registe; decreed that he
would issue letters to them upon applying
within ten days and qualifying according
TO law, and upon their failure TO do so let
tiers with the will annexed would be issued
to some other fit person. This decision was
confirmed by the Orphans Court and the
appeal taken.
THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
George Shiras, Jr, argued the case for the
appellants. The errors assigned are that
the Court erred in holding that the action of
the Register for Philadelphia city and
county, in granting letters testimentary to
the appellants, was void for want of iuris-
dictior. The Court erred in sustaining the |
action of the Register for Allegheny county,
and IN dismissing the appeal from the same |
The Cour: erred in dismissing the appeal at |
the costs of the appellants.
The appeal of David Goldman from |
the decision of the Court of Quarter |
Sessions in refusing to grant a whole |
sale liquor license, was argued next This |
is z case wherein David Goldman was re-
fused a license as a wholesale liquor dealer
At the last term OF the License Court. The
argument was made by Charles /. Powers,
ESQ.,, and gave as the assignments Of error
Of the court below that the Court erred in
refusing to grant the petition of David
Goldman Tor a license to sell LIQUOR at
as PRAYED for. The record show
ing that the petition and bond of David
Goldman were in due form. and that no re-
or objection was filed or made to
the same, and the petitioner had complied
with the requisites of the law, the court
erred in refusing to grant him license
as prayed for.
The appeal of Jacob Weiuman from Com
mon Pleas No. ? of Allegheny county was
srgued BY \. S. Williams. The case is an
action OF assumpst to recover damages for
the breach of an alleged parole contract
affecting land. The amount of money in
volved is S76S 20.
Tie appeal OF Dr. j. S. Rankin and Louisa
6. Rankin, his wife, in right of said wife.
from decree Of Orphans Court of Allegheny
county, was next taken up for argument
This case is ore wherein Mrs. Rankin was |
the heir of Margaret Griffin, who devised |
her certain lands for life, and after her de- |
cease to 60 to her children.
A DISCOVERY MADE A BIT LATE.
Some time after, Mrs. Rankin procured a |
loan on certain portions of the land, and on |
the 26th of September, 1889, presented pe- |
tition TO Couri stating that since the loan
Was made and bond ard mortgage given she |
had been advised that under the terms of the |
viii she, Mrs. Rankin, took an estate tail |
in the said land, and that under the terms
lie life estate is enlarged to fee, and that
-he money SO loaned belonged to her, aud
prayed the Court to decree a satisfaction of
.saa kor, f,~& &1,o&
Court decreed that the petition be dis
missed, and the appeal was taken. The
errors assigned are that the Court erred in
iismissing the petition. The Court also
,rred 10 not granting the petition and in not
iscreei1g the satisfaction Of the mortgage as
prayed for.
The appeal OF Maloney Brothers. GER
iorari to Common Pleas No. 2, was the
lext argument on the list. This suit grows
,ut Of the division of S44S %, the balance
# FIND derived from sale of boots and
hoes in the store OF Frank Hanika and the
.preal was taken from the Auditors re-
,ort.
The appeal Of Charles L. FIaccus, from
Common Pleas No. i, was next called up,
!. S. Furgeson, Esq, arguing for the ap-
,ellant This case was an action brought
y Albert Kaiser, to recover damages for
he loss OF his right arm by reason of an
injury received on February 21.
ss7, while working for Mr.. Flaccus.
ne case was tried three times. The first
rial resulted in disagreement Of the iurv.
N ;he second trial the plaintiff got a ver-
&C. Of S., 500, but new trial was allowed, |
nd on the third trial the verdict was again
ivsn in favor OF the plaintiff for s., 800 and
he appeal taken therefrom.
The assignments of error are that the
ou-t erred in affirming the plaintiffs Sec