Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-11-04
LOTS OF LEGAL LORE.
Forty-Seven Opinions Handed Down
by the State Supreme Court,
ALLFROM THE WESTERN COUNTIES,
Many Important Gases Argued Yesterday,
Among Them That of
THE SALE OF THE CITY POOR FARM

the CITY OF IlttSourg, which is comhohlN
known as the Poor Farm case. This case
was specially listed for yesterday, and con-
sequertlv was the first case taken up. The
history of this case, which is an appeal from
the decree o: Common Pleas No ., is an
action Of Charles L. Straub to restrain the
city OF PiItsbCrg from selling the present
Poor Farm. The claim set up is that the
farm Is not the property of the city of Pitts
burg, but Of tine corporation, the Guardians
for the Relief and Employment of the Poor
of the City OF Pi.tsburg, which holds the
legal title to it as the representative, not of
the corporation. the city of Pittsburg, but
OF the inhabitants and citizens of the poor
district of the city of Pittsburg, and on
thai ground the city OF Pittsburg has
nc authority or power to dispose of it. Also,
on the ground that it cannot be sold or dis
posed OF bv tie Guardians OF the Poor ex-
cept under the supervision and direction OF
the Cour. of Common Pleas No. 2, as pro-
vided by the act o; April %, 1887, entitled
IAN act TO authorize the Courts OF Common
Pleas to decree the sale of real estate held
for poor purposes in the several counties
boroughs, townships and poor districts in
of the proceeds thereof, provisions of which
are alleged to have not been complied with.
TWO POINTS OF ARGUMENT.
The argument was made by W. W.
Thompson, Esq, who contended there were
two pointc: First, whether the City OF Pitts
burg has legal right to sell the grounds
used as a poor farm: and second. if it has such
power, is the mode in which it is attempting TO
exercise that power the lawful mode required
by the act Of Assembly. Mr.. Thompson argued
that the Court below committed an error
in having ignored his point that the
title TO the Poor Farm still in the Guar
dlans Of the Poor, and that the city and its
Councils had no authority; beside this. the act
of 1851, giving the Court the power to make
the sale indicated that the decree of the Court
was necessary before the sale could be made.
The act of June H. 1887. did not interfere or
derogate from the former act, and the Court
below erred in holding that it did.
Major Moreland represented the city. while
Knox & Reed and ID. T. " atson appeared for
NJ. l. Baird, who purchased the property and
since sold to Carnegie Co. Major Morelands
argument was an exhaustive one and dealt
minutelv with the arguments set up by Nr.
Thompson. If Guardians of the Poor were a
separate organization why did the State grant
the city absolute control of the board by giving
Councils OF the city the selection of them all?
l be act of June, 1887. had abrogated that part
OF the act of April cited as the order of court,
ard the sale was therefore perfectly legal and
proper. Major Moreland concluded his argu-
ment by stating that the suit had some ulterior
purpose which pleadings do not disclose.
ANOTHER CELEBRATED CASE.
The appeal of Julia Mary Mitchell from the
decree of Orphans Court was next taken up,
T. {. Lazear representing the appellant. This
is the celebrated lost heiress case, wherein
Juha Mary Mitchell claims to be the long-lost
daughter of Thomas Sheehan, a well-known
Sharpsburg resident, who died some time ago,
a FOR NnfT faG 1nVafr nj
one that largely touches on the romantic. In
1855 child was born to Thomas Sheehan and
Mrs Ann Beat. widow. The child was given
10 Garrett Gibbons and wife, Mrs. Gibbons
beng sister of Thomas Sheehan. The Glib
bous family was then living near Salisbury, but
subsequently moved out West, to Keokuk Ia.
and Mrs. Beat were married, and
some ten years later endeayored to find
in 1857 and by reason of an article published
in the newspapers, Julia Mary Mitchell, who
was then living in New Castle appeared in
Sharpsburg and proved to the satisfaction of
Mrs. Sheehan that she was the long lost daugh-
ter. The girl then appealed to the Orphans
court for the establishment of her identity
and to claim her part as legal heir of Thomas
Sheehan. A long trial followed, and the de-
cision of the court was against the claim of
Julia Mary Mitchell.
In his argument Mr. Lazear stated that if
Mary Sheehan is living II cannot be denied
that she Is entitled to her share of the estate
Ii was testified by Garret Gibbons that Mary
SDeenan. WHO lau Deen cOn1eQ to his care, had
died IN childhood, and on that testimony the
Court below found against the appellant and
tteCTeed distribution TO others; among them
Is Michael Gibbons, q son of Garrett Gibbons
This testimony should therefore be taken with
great care, in view of the relations existing be-
tween the two
ONE CONSIDERATION ADMITTED.
Mr.. Lazear stated that after a review the
case admits of no other conclusion than that
Garrett Gibbons deliberately perjured himself
in his statements regarding the death of Mary
Sheehan, and leads to a conviction amounting
to q certainty. that she was in full life when
Mrs Gibbons died. and the family in cunse-
quence OF her death. became broken up and
scattered. In that case, what became of Mary
Sheehan? Garrett Gibbons did not provide for
her and she fell into other hands and Julia
Mary Mitchell is beyond doubt that child.
The remainder of the argument was a strong
presentation of Miss Mitchels claims from
her Similarity to the deceased. and of the testl-
lHOny OF her dead mother in acknowledging her
as her daughter on account of her birthmark.
The appelieeS were represented by N. s. Will
lamS, ESQ., who, at the request of Chief Justice
PdXSOn, made no reply.
Charles Augerstem VS. Jones & Laughlins ap-
pellants from Common Pleas No. / was rext
taken up. This case is one for damages.
Augerstein was employed by Jones Laugh
Inns. and was injured by the bursting of an
emery wheel, December "a 1883. The Jury
awarded verdict OF 81, ,000 The assignments
Of error are that the court below erred In al
lowing certain testimony for the plaintiff
from Common Pleas No. was the next arpr-
Inent taken up. The case is an appeal from
the decision of the court compelling it to paw
witness lees, ETC.. in case where damages
were awarded exceeding the sum set by the
Board OF Viewers on the ground of James Nc
Gibbnny, in Baldwin township
Tie appeal OF James Butler from Common
Pleas No was argued by w K JeDpinps
Esq. The action in This case was brought 10
recover damages from the Pittsburg aud Bir-
lnnChau' Passenger Railway COMPANY The
plaintiff IS a boy. l3 years old, The how IT
EeeluS riding the front end of the car
and near South Thirteenth street, he was struck
10y mortar box and knocked off the front
wheel passing over his leg. The boy had mot
as vet paid his fare. but intended TO do so
Chief Justice PaXson immediately affirmed the
nndlnS OF the lower court, because no bill of
exceptions had been filed. which was necessary
10 bring up the evidence. Attorney JENNINGS
said that he would file bill of exceptions ana
Justice PaXson stated that in case that was
done be would take of the affirmation.
OTHER APPEALS TAKEN UP.
The appeal of the heirs of John F. Jennings
from Common Pleas No. was next called nm
The case was an action ia ejectment to recover
a tract of land in Plum township. The argu
ment was made by W. X. Jennings ESQ
The appeal OF the Kelly d Jones Compapy
from Common Pleas No i was the last arm.
ment OF the day, This suit grew out of the
construction OF works at II utf's station on the
Southwest branch ofthe PENNSYLVANIA Railroad
The contractor was John Huckestein and the
contract read that the building was to he fin
ished within a specified time or the contractor
would suffer forfeiture of 500 Der day The
building was not finished in time the reason
being that side track on which the material
was TO be conveyed was never LAID and a great
loss Of time was thereby caused. The iury
below found Tor the contractor in rhe amount
claimed and the appeal is from said finding
7o-day'S argument list follows.