Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-10-28
GETTING NEAR HOME.
The Allegheny County List Taken Up
by the Supreme Court.
CASES NON-PROSSED Or ARGUED.
A Number of COunterfeiterS Sentenced to
Terms in the Pen.
OTHER WORK OF COURTS YESTERDAY

the Supreme Court yesterday, and as re-
suit the courtroom was crowded all day.
There were 125 cases on the list. o. these a
number were non pressed and some contin-
ued leaving about ITO cases for argument.
The first business transacted alter the
opening of court was tie handing down of five
opinions. which were as follows:
Justice Sterrett:
Bells appeal from c. 2. of Greene county; de-
cree reversed at the cost OF appellee, and record
remitted for further proceedings.
Brown ct al Wis Downing; appeal by defendant
from c. 2. of Nenango county. Affirmed.
Justice McCollum:
Railroad company VS. vandyke ct al; appeal
from c. z. of Bradford. Affirmed.
james VS. Sterrett; appeal Of defendant from c.
T. OF Chester county. Reversed.
Bentley Creamer: appeal ny defendant from
{. Z. OF Bradford county. Affirmed.
The Allegheny county list was then taken
UP. and the following cases non-prossed:
Company from Common Pleas No. >; Rief. Jr., VS.
acme Tanning Company, from Common Pleas
from Common Pleas No .; Ahlborn VS. Ortman.
administering; appeal from Common Pleas No /:
Bender vs. Dignai. from Common Pleas No. ::
Husburu, administrator. VS. Kerr, from Common
Pleas No. l: Evanson 4 Sons VS. Mccormick. from
from Common Pleas No, /; jolly Bros. VS. Free,
from Common Pleas No.2:appeal of Goeddel, from
Quarter sessions; " ilson ct al Hasley, from
Commnn Pleas No2; Linton vs. Browasky, from
NOnlulOn Pleas No. ]. appeal OF Their. from QUAR-
Ter Sessions: The following cases were ordered
continued for one year: Staiger VS.. Pittsburg
anu Lake Erie RallroaG, from common fleas 10.
.; Rath vs Pirl, from Common Pleas No. The
appeal Of Quinn from Common Pleas No; Twas
Discontinued. and the appeal Of Kelly ct al from
Quarter Sessions was Quashed.
FIRST OF THE CASES ARGUED.
The first case argued was the appeal of
George ]. Whitney, s,isignee of James Mar
shall Jr. James M.rshall, Sr.. died on Sep
tember %. 1869, seiz d with a large estate, and
left the bulk Of his property for certain pur-
poses After the cease of the father the
business was conduct I'd by James Marshall,
Jr.. who was one of the truste 3. The suit was
brought to recover stocks and bonds OF the es-
tate, as pledged by lanes Marshall, Jr.. as col
lateral security for debts of his own. In 1883
an order was made to sell the property of The
deceased and piece was sold for $1,000 The
sale was confirmed and from this confirmation
the appeal was taken. Robert Arthurs, Esq.,,
and Thomas ID. Chanter, Esq, were the artUr-
neys for the appellants and J. H. White, Esq,
for the appelles. The argument was that the
trustees were no. invested with the power to
sue and that James Marshall, Jr., had vested
interest in the property.
4he next case taken up was one OF great i'm
portanCe. the appeal Of John X. GlolInger
ys the PIttsUurg ana Connellsvile Railroad.
The suit seeks to set aside all proceedings by
which the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad ac-
Qulred control of the Pittsburg and Connells-
VILE Railroad, and TO have the court set aside
the action of the Pittsburg and Connellsville
lOO0lO0O on its property and franchises. The
case was argued for the appellees by John S.
Ferguson, Esq. and George Shiras, Esq.
while D. 7. Watson and William S. Pier
Esqs.. appeared for the appellants. In 1854 the
bill alleges the capital stock 81, ,994 400 and
its funded debt SlO,6lS600. With its business
III that apparent prosperous way, with no
pressing necessities. and without any notice to
stockholders it was suddenly proposed and re-
solved at the annual meeting in December,
1854. without any discussion explanation,
that the directors be authorized to borrow SlQ- |
OOOOOO and issue bonds for that amount.
REQUESTED BY THE RAILROAD.
This resolution was prepared by and pre-
sented at the request of the Baltimore and
OHIO Railroad Company, and was adopted be-
cauL hat company required it There was no
opposition, no stockholders had notice of the
action. and few. if any, outside the Baltimore
ard Ohio people were present. There were
55O53 shares voted. and S2.26O we're voted by
the Baltimore anG Ohio Company. Six weeks |
prior 10 the resolution of the stockholders to
Issue these bonds an agreement had been made |
with a New York syndicate to deliver to it !
$4,000 900 of the second mortgage bonds of the |
Pittsburg and Connellsviile road. By the issue |
have been increased S2l2O0O annually. Its liza |
bIIties have been increased more than Sc, 6,0O0,- |
COO, and 1t has been converted from a corpora |
ton with handsome surplus to one with a |
constant deficit and certain insolvency await
ing II. No notice was given to the stockholders |
Of the Pittsburg and ConnelisvilIe COMPANY of |
-. ID
the act OF 1874. The bill asks that each of the |
bonds to secure the $4,000 900 loan be declared
null and void
The defense was that the Baltimore and Ohio
Company has sold the bonds held by it, and they |
in the hands of bona fide holders for value; |
that the mortgage is a valid mortgage; that the /
deed OF trust to Robert Garrett is valid, and a |
general denial was made to all the charges and
that due and general notice was given of the
meeting at which the vote on issuing the sl0
OOO,CUO mortgage was received. The paper books |
in the case cover 800 pages of printed matter |
The appeal of Mary \. Rodgers from the de-
cree OF Quarter Sessions was argued This is
az appeal from the report of the Board of !
Viewers assessing damages caused by the wild
ening of Sheridan avenue. Bellevue. The argu-
nent was made by Robb & Fitzsimmons. ].
w. klrker appeared for the appellee.
A DAMAGE CASE APPEALED.
The appeal of the defendant in the case of
Sylvester Ross VS.. j. W. Walker appealed
from c. =. No. 2 is one of damages The
plaintiff, Sylvester Ross, was employed by the
bridge building firm of ]. w. Walker, and it
is alleged that he was injured by the downfall
of a scaffolding on which he was working The
scatfold is alleged TO have been defective mas
much as it contained one bad board. 1t was
constructed under the supervision of the fore
man of the firm. Knox and Reed, attorneys
for the appellant, clam that the scaffolding
was built by the men who worked upon it.
There was plenty of good lumber on the
gr.uud, and if bad board was placed IN the
scatfold the fault belonged to the men and not
TO he foreman or Mr.. Walker.
TIE suit of the Marshall Foundry and Con-
strucion Company Limited. against the Pitts
burg fraction Company, appealed by the de-
fendant from c. 2. No / vas argued The
suit was to recover a balance claimed TO be due
on the contract for furnishing iron work for
the Traction COmpanys line. The Traction
Company alleges that some of the work was
not accord NJ to the specifications.
An argument was heard on the appeal of the
Commissioners of Potter county from the C. P
OF Potte county. The case was an appeal
from the decision of the Court on the matter of
81 a.