Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-11-06
Il The Supreme Justices to Determine
Whether Ignorance of Bogus
Butter is a Crime.
ONE-EYED MANS SUIT FOR SIGHT.
A Discharged Employees Claim Against the
Pittsburg and Lake Erie
Railroad Company.
BREWERS AND THE MERCANTILE TAX.
Divorce Cases and Other Actions Disposed of in the
County Courts

The Supreme Court heard arguments in
nine cases yesterday, and the most interest
ing was one to decide whether restaurant
keeper was bound to know oleomargarine
when he saw it. This question arose in the
appeal of Matt Weiss from the judgment of
No. l, OF this county, in the suit brought
against him by A. L. Best for selling oleo-
margarine.
The case was heard before a justice OF the
peace and Judgment given against Weiss
for 500. He appealed, and in the argu-
ment before the Court the plaintiffs attorney
asked that the jury be instructed to decide
in favor of Weiss, if they believed he did
not know the oleomargarine was genuine
butter. This was refused and the jury found
for prosecutor Best. The case was argued
IN the Supreme Court yesterday, by John
S. Ferguson, Esq, for Mr.. Weiss, and vii.
liam NOst, Esq, for the appellee. The latter
attorney held that Mr.. Weiss made no ex-
animation OF the butter or effort to determine
its genuineness.
The next case was that of J. Henry Smith,
an appeal from No. of this county, where
judgment was given for the defendant in the
q
on a lease of oil land. The parties made
contract wherein Munhall was to pay
stipulated sum IN case oil was found on GER
tain land. No oil was found, but Smith
brought the suit claiming bonuses.
TOO QUICK TO SUE.
The court below said the suit was prema-
ture, that If oil was found later when Mum
hall still held the lease, suit could be
brought if he did not live up TO his contract.
A. NJ. Blakeley argued for the appellant
that because he did not make tighter con-
tract does not relieve the defendant from his
obligation.
The appeal of the Robinson-Rea Manu-
featuring Company from judgment on con-
tract for building an incline. They took
the contract from A W. Mellon and sued
for balance and got verdict for S2,77S IL.
Mellon appeals and AYERS the Court below
disregarded some of the specifications in the
contract.
The next case was that of the appeal of
Anderson, DuPuy & Co., and Frederick
Burns, in q suit brought bv John j. Ford,
for his son, W. J. Ford. The latter was in
jured in defendants works and got damages
in s., OOO
The next was the appeal of David
Humphreys from the Judgment of No.
on reserved question. He sued the Ma
tionsl Benefit Association, of Indianapolis,
to recover on an accident policy and got
Sl,O56 by a verdict subject to the opinion OF
the Court on a question of law. The Court
cut II down TO Sl32
HELD TO THE CONTRACT
Humphreys had but one eve, and after
taking out the policy lost that one in an
accident. He sued to recover by being
made totally blind. The defense was that
the contract stated the loss of one eve would
be paid for at the rate of s. per week for
not longer than 50 weeks. The defendants
Induced him to accept $40 which the court de-
Quoted from his amount recovered. The court
IS said to have erred in the general finding.
The appeal OF Lena kraus from refusal to
take OF nOn-sult in her case against the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company was next
taken up, She brought suit to recover for her
husbands death on the road The court held
the deceased had met death by his negligence,
non-suit was granted and refused on appeal
10 be taken of. The appellant objects to this
and other general rulings.
w. {. Sales and Madison Mehaffey appealed
from the decree OF the Orphans Court of this
county TO an account filed in the will of Alex
Mebaffey.
The Pittsburg and Lake Erie Railroad Com
pany appealed in the case brought against them
by the Phoenix Clay Pot Company for damages
10 goods shipped over the railroad.
The last case heard was the appeal of John
c. Henry to the decree OF the court refusing to
take of a non-suit in his case of trespass
against the Plttsburg and Lake Erie Railroad
The case is wen known. Henry was employed
IN the ticket department of the road and was
discharged, and the newspapers publishing the
TACT Mr. Henry brought SUIT, alleging the story
inferred, that ne was discharged for dishon-
esty. The case was reviewed yesterday by
Nessrs. Schoyer and Rogers for Mr.. Henry and
MI. Reed tor the railroad company and Colonel
Stone Tor Mr., HOlbroOk, who was the su-
perlntendent of the road at the time and who
was alleged to have given the matter to the
papers.