Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-11-08
A SATURDAY SESSION.
The Supreme Court to Throw Pre-
cedents to the Four Winds,
YESTERDAYS BIG LOT OF WORK.
Arguments of Cases in Which the County
is Interested.
REPORT IN THE EISENBIES CASE

The Supreme Court will to-day in
augurate an innovation. 1t will sit on Sat
urday, an unprecedented proceeding for that
august body. There is desire to finish up
Allegheny county cases and end the term
and in order to do that Chief Justice Paxson
decided to hold court to-day, when the list
will be finished up.
The first argument yesterday was M. A.
Woodward versus Brace Brothers. The suit
is for the recovery of $500 as masters fee in
the case where Brace Brothers applied for
an injunction to restrain the knights OF
Labor from carrying on a boycott against
their laundry.
The appeal of Philip Hamburger from
Common Pleas No. 2, next on the list, is for
the recovery of balance due on book ac-
count against George w. Jones, deceased.
The amount is 50, 141 80, and was allowed
in the court below on special verdict, the
Court holding that Hamburger and Jones
were partners.
S. +. johnson & Co., for use of W. NJ.
Patrick VS. the city of Allegheny and the
Shoe and Leather Bank, appeal from Com
mon Pleas No. l, was argued by Kirk Q.
Bigham. This action was to recover the
amount due, according to the engineers
estimate, upon a contract for the improve
ment of Howard street, Allegheny. The
amount involved in 81, ,OO3 so.
APPEAL IN A LIBEL SUIT.
The appeal of Michael Conroy from Com
mon Pleas No. l, was argued. This case is
one wherein Conrov brought suit against
the Pittsburg Times for libel, he having
been accused by that paper of conducting
''dive." The suit was to recover $1,000
damages, and when called for trial in the
court below a non-suit was allowed, which
is the specification of error. The appellant
is represented by Thomas NJ Marshall, Jr.,
and William Reardon, Esq, while George
c. Wilson, George 3. Gordon, Esq, and
L. H. Shannon appear for the appellee.
James NJ. Gutfey's appeal from Common
Pleas No. was argued by w. F. McCook,
ESQ. The case is an action brought to re-
cover for the lease of land for oil and gas
purposes. The articles of agreement stip-
ulated that a well was to be sunk within six
months and on failure to do so there was to
be forfeiture OF 1921. The we'll was not
sunk and suit was brought to recover the
amount named and was allowed by court
below, hence the appeal.
The appeal of Mary l. Morton and E. j.
Mclaughlin from Common Pleas No. 1
was taken up. The case is one wherein
Mrs. Morton contracted with Edward Nc
Laughlin to build two frame houses in the
Nineteenth ward. Mclaughlin made an
agreement with Murphy & Diebold to fur
nish all the frame work. In the contract
between Mrs. Morton and Mclaughlin it
was stipulated that Mclaughlin was to
furnish at his own expense all the labor,
II Al
when completed would deliver the houses
to Mrs. Morton free of all claims. Before
the houses we're completed Mclaughlin
failed without having paid Murphy &
Diebold, and they filed lien for s., 367 Ct.
Mrs. Morton claims to have paid the full
amount of the contract except 5000. The
court below allowed the claim of Murphy
& Diebold, hence the appeal.
SUIT OVER A RAILROAD SWITCH.
James A. Chambers appeal from the de-
cree of Common Pleas No. 2 was argued by
John M. Kennedy, Esq. This suit grows
out of a railroad switch alleged 10 be on the
property OF Mr.. Chambers in McKeesport.
On getting possession of the property, Mr..
Chambers ordered the Baltimore and Ohio
Company to remove the switch, which they
refused to do. Mr.. Chambers then tore the
switch out and it was replaced by the COM
pany, who claimed the rlght to place II
there by agreement with prior owners. The
railroad company then filed a suit in equity
to restrain MIR. Chambers from disturbing
the switch. The court below sustained the
report of the master, which sustained the
Baltimore and Ohio Company and the ap-
peal was taken.
The appeal of Daniel Ritter and Henry
Berg from Quarter Sessions was the last ar
gument OF the day. This case grows out of
the refusal OF the last License Court to grant
the appellants license to sell liquor in
Verona on the ground that it was prohibit
tory district. The arguments are that the
borough of Verona is cut out of parts of
Penn and Plum townships, which were
originally prohibitory townships. The at
torney for the appellants deny that the
township is prohibitory, and to settle the
question the appeal was taken.
The argument list for to-day is Beatty VS.
Rankin ct ux, Bunting VS. Hogsett (4),
Feity VS. Calhoon, Commonwealth VS.
Doughty ct al, Marshall VS. Roll, Bradwell
VS. Pittsburg and West End Railway Com
pany, Jinks VS. Banner Lodge No. 4S4,
Lockhart VS. Craig Street Railway Company
ct al, Pittsburg Junction Railroad Company
VS. Allegheny Valley Railroad Company
ct al,