Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-11-11
The Supreme Court Affirms the YER
dict in the Court Below,
AND ORDERS HIS COMMITMENT.
Self-Defence the Plea in the Murder Trial
Now Being Heard.
NEWS FROM THE MILL OF JUSTICE

The decision in the case of james L. Orr,
the real estate dealer found guilty of an
assault upon young girl, May Kelly, was
the most important. He had been sentenced
to the penitentiary for four years and ten
months. The Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the lower court Error was
alleged in the charge of the Judge to the
jury, in reply to " hich the decision says:
After a careful examination of all the testi-
mony we believe it justified the charge of the
count; it pressed heavily on the defendant by
the weight of the case not the charge of the
count. The jury have nothing TO reproach
themselves with in view of the testimony, and
assuming the defendants guilt, as we must do,
he certainly escaped with very merciful sem
tence The Judgment of the lower court is
therefore affirmed, and the defendant is or
dered to surrender himself to the High Sheriff
for confinement in the Western Penitentiary in
obedience to the sentence OF the court below
Orr, the defendant, WAS present in the
Supreme Court room yesterday morning,
and after learning the decision went out
There was also middle-aged lady present
who sat weeping near the door, and one of
the attendants asked her what the trouble
was. Through her sobs and tears she said
she wished to know what had been done in
the case OF MIR. Orr. She was told that the
Supreme Court refused his application for a
reversal of his case and he would have to 60
10 the pe0lI6DtldTy. que UuTSt Oub Will d
''Thank Godl" She was May Kelly's
mother.
FOUND AND PLACED IN JAIL.
The record of the court was remitted, and
when it reached the Sheriff's Office an officer
was sent after Orr, TO arrest him. He could
not be found, but as he was under S. 600 bail no
fears were entertained that he would escape.
Shortly before o'clock Officer Pender found
Orr on Grant street and took him to the
Sheriff's office, and thence to jail.
An action for damages brought against Orr
by May Kelly is now pending.
Several decisions were made in wholesale
liquor cases, and in that of David Goldman, the
Court said: THE record shows the refusal to
be for the reason that the applicant does not
possess the qualifications required by the act
of Assembly. This is sufficient and judgment
is affirmed" In all the other like cases no
comment is made, the Judgment affirmed, per
curam," being the only Endorsement.
Before hearing the last arguments of the ses-
sion the Court handed down opinions and de-
Clsions as follows:
Rogers appeal from Q. S. of Allegheny,
affirmed. Same vs. Schneider. from e. z. OF Allie
The Marshall Foundry Company VS. the Pitts
Lance VS. German, Eastern district. Reargument
Appeal of Newton Coal Company from Luzerne
BTeckerhOf's appeal from Eastern district Re-
argument refused.
Moody's appeal Reargument ordered.
Davis We jefferson Gas Company. Reargument
j. ". Roach's appeal from Q. S. of ofAIlegheny.
Affirmed.
McCafrey's appeal from Q. S. of ofAnegheny.
Affirmed.
In re of the application of David Goldman.
McNuIty's appeal from the same court. Az
Philip sweoney's appeal from the same court.
Appeal of Frank Peters from same court
Affirmed
kaiser VS.. Flaccus from c. P. of Allegheny.
Hniiard's appeal from o. C. of Allegheny.
PhiiadeIphia Company vs. Park Bros Affirmed
In re MolI' application from Q. 5. of Allegheny
county. Affirmed.
Ditiman's appeal from o. c. of Allegheny.
Maioney's appeal from c. P. No. 2. Affirmed.
Mchenney VS.. Fawcett, {. z. No. !. Affirmed.
Ranktn's appeal from o. e. Of Allegheny. At
frmed.
Miller VS. Rivers, appeal from c. P. No. ?. Af-
irmed.
Lewis VS. R1ttigan, c. Z. No. . Affirmed.
sevan et al vs. covert: {. ?. No: l. Affirmed
Fisher VS. the Bader Gas Company. Affirmed.
Appeal of Second National Bank from o. c. Of
Allegheny; Affirmed; ~
county. Affirmed.
THE OTHER JUDGES WORK.
Mitchell, J.
Furgeson's appeal, from o. c. of Armstrong
county. Reversed.
bur- &. Z. of Indiana county. Reversed.
Haworth VS. TRULY, c. 2. of Indiana. Reversed.
The Reading Fire Insurance Company VS. the
Reading Iron Works, &. z. of Berks county.
The Reading Fire Insurance Company VS. the
Reading Iron W Orks. Affirmed.
Jacob Ulmer VS. Byard {. P. No. Of Phtla-
The township of Mcintyre VS. V. P. Welsh,
G 7. of Lycoming county. Reversed.
W. C. Thompson VS. Christie, c. P. of Butler.
Reversed.
A number Of cases were argued yesterday be
fore the Supreme Court before the final ad-
journment. The most important was the ap-
peal OF the Allegheny Valley Railroad Com
pauy from the decree of the Court of Common
Pleas No, 2 The cases were cross suits in
equity between the Pittsburg junction Rail-
road Company and the Allegheny Valley Rail-
road Company The point in contest was the
laying of the branch llne of the junction Rail-
road from Thirty-thIrd street to Eleventh
street, to connect with the various mills. From
Twentieth street to Sixteenth street, the line
was over ground along the river bank, owned
by the Allegheny Valley Railroad Company.
The first bill was brought to restrain the Allie
gheny Valley Railroad from interfering with
the junction in laying its tracks.
The second, or cross bill, was filed
against the junction to restrain ii
from laying its tracks on the property
of the A. V. r. K Co. The cases were referred
to a master, who decided in favor of the juno.
tion Railroad Company, holding that the courts
have no other authority in a case of this char.
aCleT ludn anu llmlJdtlOn Oh I0e
exercise of the power of eminent domain SO far
as to preserve as nearly as possible the fullest
enjoyment of the powers of each company for
the objects for which they were granted. giving a
preference of privilege to the one prior in en-
jOyment, but not 50 as to disappoint the object
Tor which the powers common to both are
granted.
THE MASTER SUSTAINED.
The lower court sustained the master, and
an appeal was taken. 1t is claimed that the
Court erred in overruling certain exceptions to
the masters report and finding
An argument was heard on the appeal oi
Charles Lockbart and others from the c. p
No. !. The case was the suit brought by Lock
hart and others against the Craig Street Rail
way and the DuQuesne Traction Company tc
prevent the latter from laying its tracks or
Negley avenue, and claiming that they would
destroy the paving and injure the plaintiffs
property. The Court refused the Injunction
asked for. and an appeal was taken.
An argument was heard in the case of Mari
S. jerks against the Banner Lodge of tn,
knights and Ladies of Honor, and Mrs. Sa
lone Reeg appealed by the plaintiff from
Common Pleas No. l. The suit was an actor
on policy on the life OF Martin Reeg He anC
his wife, SalOme Reeg, were members of thu
order, and each was insured in favor of thu
other. They separated, however and Rec,
made will assigning the benefits under hi
certificate to the plaintiff. He died, and sh,
claimed the insurance, holding that Reeg hat
given his wife a house and lot to release al
claims on his estate. The wife also claimed tn
insurance, and the Court decided in her favo
on the ground among other things that Mrs
jerks had no insurable interest IN the life o
Reeg.
An argument was heard in the case Of JohI
Bradwell against ne PIttsburg and West Eni
Railway Company, appealed by the plaintiff
from Common Pleas No. 2. The suit hvas TO
damages for injuries received by being rul
over by a car.
The case of A. NJ Marshall against George c