Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-11-05
NONE OF THEM VOTED.
The Supreme Court Justices Stuck
Closely to Their Knitting.
GREAT INTEREST OF THE LADIES
In the Great Legal Lights Who Wear Such
Somber Black Gowns.
ARGUMENTS MADEIN COURT YESTERDAY

None of the Justices of the Supreme
Court went home to exercise the rights of a
freeman in voting. AS result of the elee-
tion excitement, the visitors lobby, yester-
day, was nearly empty.
An interesting feature OF the sitting of the
Supreme Court in this city is the amount of
interest that the ladies takein it. Hardly a
day passes that the court room is not visited
by score or more of the gentler sex, who
remain for hours listening with closest at
tention to the arguments. The Justices,
with their somber black gowns, seem to have
particular fascination for the ladies.
The first case called up for argument yes
terday was that of the appeal of Edward
Groetzinger from c. P. No. /. The action
was in replevin to recover damages and
possession of a lot of merchandise, valued at
$500, which is alleged to have been
illegally levied upon by virtue of a land
lords warrant issued against T. NJ. Lati-
mer on May 8, 1885, The jury below
found for Mr. Latimer, and an appeal was
taken. The errors charged are that the
court erred in affirming certain points for
the plaintiff.
APPEAL OF A COAL RAILROAD.
j. Scott Ferguson, Esq, argued the ap-
peal of the Pittsburg Coal Railroad Com
pany from G. 2. No. 1. This case
began by bill in equity being filed by w.
F. Bailey, the assignee of Joseph n. McCreery.
who was judgment creditor of the Pitts burg
Coal road against said company, Tor the pur-
pose OF having receiver appointed to collect
enough OF the unpaid stock subscriptions to
pay MS Judgment. Some time after the case
was IN the Masters hands, E. p. Kearns, Dan
iel Risher and NJ. L. Mcclure presented petit
tlons to court, claiming to be creditors of the
company, and praying for leave to intervene
and become party plaintiffs for the collection
OF their claims. This was allowed, and from
which the appeal was taken, the claim being
that neither Risher nor Mcclure ever sued the
company at law. and the claim is set uD that
kearns, Risher and Mcclure never we're cred
llors of the road and the court erred in making
decree establishing their alleged claims.
William +. Jones appeal from G. p. No. 2
was argued by good-natured e. c. Dickey,
Esq, who managed during his argument to
Keep the justices in good humor. Marie H.
Eltenger was the plaintiff below, and brought
action against William F. Jones for breach of
promise. The statement set forth is that the
plaintiff, under her seal, released the defend
ant of all claims and damages. At the trial
the plaintiff testified that when the defendant
requested her to release him she agreed to do
so under promise that if she did so the de-
fendant would do what was right and Just by
her: The defendant denied the making of any
such promise. The jury returned a verdict for
plaintiff for $3.50. The alleged error of the
court below Is the failure to affirm some of the
defendants points,
SUIT OVER A SHERIFF's SALE.
The appeal of Joseph Hufnagle and Alexan-
der E. McCandless, from c. P. No. l. was the
next argument the list. Tie case is one
where Karl Kline, who was plaintiff below,
claimed to be the owner of certain goods which
he had purchased at Sheriff's sale on his own
brought an action of trespass against the
Sheriff and Joseph Hufnagle for again selling
the same goods On Hufnagle's execution as the
property of George Kline. The jury awarded
verdict of $780, and the appeal was taken.
The specifications of errors consists of the
Judges charge to the Jury.
The appeal of Robert McGregor, John and
Nancy Peterman, from Common Pleas No. q
came next on the list The suit was over al
legged damages sustained by appellants from
the laying Of gas main over their lands in
Penn township by the Equitable Gas Com
pany. The Board of Viewers fixed the dam
age at $50 ana an appeal was taken.
The appeal of I. ]. Hambay, defendant be-
low. vs.; D; N. Cornelius. error to Common
Pleas No. i, was argued by w. ID. Moore, Esq.
This is the case that created somewhat of a
furore when first made public. The suit was
for alternating wifes affections. The assault
on the defendant by the plaintiff in open court
is alleged to have favorably affected the Jury
who returned a verdict in the sum of 81 600.
The errors alleged are the refusal of the court
below to hear certain witnesses, also the
charge to the jury.
l.. X. Porter, ESQ.,, argued the appeal of
Samuel P. Shriver VS. the Crawford Manufac-
turing Company appeal from Common Pleas
No. l. This suit grew out of partnership
trouble in the firm of A. J. Nellis & Co.. and
the controversy grows out of the sales of the
Nellis interest, the sum involved being about
$1,000.
APPEAL IN A DAMAGE SUIT.
The appeal of Catherine NJ. Simpson VS. the
Pittsburg Locomotive Works. from Common
Pleas No. !, was argued by A. NJ. Watson, Esq
This suit was one of damages wherein the
appellants husband was killed by the bursting
of an emery wheel. A non-suit was entered in
the court below, and an appeal from this
taken.
The argument list for to-day is as follows:
Commonwealth Weiss: Smith VS. Nunhall:
Robinson-Rea Manufacturing Company VS. Mel
Ion: Ford VS. Henderson, DePuy & Co. Hum
phries VS. National Benefit Association. of Indian
apolis; kraus VS. Pennsylvania Railroad Com
pany; Sales appeal; PhsnIX Clay Pot Company
VS. Pittsburg and Lake Erie Railroad Com ranv:
Henry VS. PittSburg and Lake Erie Railroad Com
pany: Commonwealth Wilkinson: Chnrch's
appeal: Stewart ct uX Nicely: Republic Iron
" Orks vs. Burgione; Woodward VS. Brace Bros
Poundstone VS. hamburger: McCracken & Son VS.