Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-11-01
COMING UP MONDAY.
AN EARLY HEARING OF THE POOR FARM
CASE TO BE HAD.

The Supreme Court Advances Mr.. Straub's 8
Protest Peg or Two Regular Argu-
ment List Again Taken Up-Some Inn
portant Cases Argued Yesterday.
When the Supreme Court opened yester-
day morning, Chief Justice Paxsou handed
down an order fixing the argument in the
which is the celebrated Poor Farm case, for
the first thing on Monday morning.
The regular argument list was then taken
up, and the first case called was the appeal
of the Newton Coal Company from Com
mon Pleas of Luzerne county. This case
comes from the eastern district and is for the
alleged trespassing on certain railroad lands.
Theappeal of August Schneider, certiorari
to Common Pleas No. 2, was the next argu-
ment. The case is over the title to GER
tain piece of land in the Fourth ward, AL
legheny. The appeal is on the sustaining
of q masters report.
The appeal of Samuel S. McKenney and
wife Viola from Common Pleas No. l, was
argued by j. S. Ferguson, Esq. This suit
grows out of trouble in a limited partner
ship, and the suit was an action in assump-
sit to recover certain moneys alleged to have
been withheld. The case was tried twice;
the first time the jury disagreed, and on the
second trial a verdict for 6L cents was
given, and new trial asked for, which was
not allowed. The appeal is from the re-
fusal.
ANOTHER PENNSY APPEAL.
The appeal of the Pennsylvania Company
from certiorari to Common Pleas No. 1,
! was next taken up. This case was an action
8 -br h. h..
who. In stepping from the platform in Allie
gheny, fell and broke her leg. Suit was
entered and verdict for damages in the
sum of s., 900 given her. The errors alleged
are that the Court erred in admitting certain
evidence, also in the charge to the jury.
William Engel VS. the city OF Pittsburg
was the next argument. This case is an ap-
peal from Common Pleas No. l affirm
ing the report of the Board OF Viewers
in the matter of paving and curb
ing Wyoming street. The street was
laid out and graded under the act
of 1864, but no steps were taken toward its
completion until after the passage of the act
of June, IA, 1887, when an ordinance was
passed authorizing the paving and curbing.
The cost was assessed by the Board of View
ers provided for in the above act, and their
action was confirmed by Councils, from
which action the appeal to court was taken.
The action in approving the Board OF View
| ers' report is the error assigned.
The appeal of Louis Beinhauer from Com
mon Pleas No. was next called up. This
suit is similar one to the preceding case,
and relates to the Board of Viewers report
on the paving and curbing of Boggs avenue.
The appeal of Park Brothers & Co., Limit
ed VS. Philadelphia Company, certiorari to
Common Pleas No. l. This case was an
action in assumpsit. On July Z, 1887, the
parties entered into contract for a supply
of natural gas for one year, from January
10, 1888, for the sum of $1,000.
The contract limited the obliga-
tion of the Philadelphia Company
in the supply of gas to such gas as might be
used for fuel by the defendants. It had
been the practice, however, during previous
contracts that were of the same nature, to
permit the defendants to use gas for illum.
mating purposes, without any extra com
pensation.
NOTIFIED OF A CHANGE.
On January the plaintiff notified the de
fendant that it proposed to alter the prac.
tice, and not allow the gas to be used fol
Illuminating purposes without compensa'
tion therefor. The defendants denied the
right of the plaintiff to alter the
practice, upon the faith of the existence OF
which they claimed that they had made the
contract and continued to use the gas fol
illuminating. Suit was then brought, and
the contest was wholly on the amount Of gas
used for Illuminating purposes. The verdict