Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-01-06
GIVEN A BLACK EYE.
The City Fares Poorly at the Hands
of the State Supreme Court.
A DECISION KNOCKS OUT 100000.
other Judgments Affecting People Living
in or Near Pittsburg.
YESTERDAY IN THE COUNTY COURTS

Perhaps the most interesting case to the
city OF Pittsburg, decided by the Supreme
Court and reported yesterday, was that OF
the appeal of Louis Beiuhauer ct al, over
so other people, certiorari to the Common
Pleas No. 1, and in which the city gets
very black eve.
Il is stated that it knocks the municipality
out of clean 500, 600 IN the cases of the
paving of Boggs avenue, Wyoming and
Shiloh streets, Thirty-second ward, and
elsewhere. The decision is held to nullify
the act of Assembly OF June IA, 1887, en-
titled, "An act authorizing and directing
Councils OF cities OF the second class to pro-
vide for the Improvement of streets" ETC.,
and also to involve the street act of 1889.
Charles A. O'Brien and NJ. A. Wood
ward were the attorneys for the appellants.
an abstract OF their petition is the setting
forth that the act of June A. 1887, is uncon-
stituuonai and void.
Second-Ii the acts were not unconstitu-
iional, the assessment was Illegal and void,
anyhow, for the reason that the city and its
agents in making the improvement did not
comply with the provisions of the act
Priority of the Board of Viewers.
Gnird-That the act of the city in ordering
and directing the improvement was illegal,
as the act OF 1857 required that the ordinance
should not be passed until referred to the
Board of Viewers. who should examine and re-
port 10 Councils whether or not the benefits de-
lived would be sufficient to pay for the i'm
pruv-menr. a statement of property benefited.
estimate OF the amount OF benefit, estimated
cost nf tile improvement. and that the board
should have given five days notice as required,
and that such notice was not gwen, and the
property holders were not given any hearing
EOurth-lle assessments were not according
10 benefits. nor all properties specially bene-
Iited assessed
Fifth-The improvement was not the one or
GaiEed by Councils the grade being changed in
divers places during The progress of the work.
SiNtL-Ihe ordinance Was violated by unau-
tLarIzed changes in the width of tie avenues.
SeVenth-1he paving and curbing were unau-
thorlZed by Law.
Eighth-The assessment is excessive and ille-
EJl.
The city denied the plea that the act of As
semUly was void for unconsritutiouality. II
also denied all the eight specifications of the
plaintiffs and went further, holding that 4 ma
lOrlty in interest abuttinG on BoggS avenue had
IetIuoned for the Improvement; held that the
petitioners had no right to a trial by jury: that
the act providing that an owner sustaining
damages could petition Councils. the petition
To lie referred TO The Board OF Viewers TO ap-
praise damages: the petition should be pre-
scused to Councils within so days after COM
Fiction of the Improvement; that before CON-
lnencement Councils may refer the assessment
of any damages and benefits to the Board of
Viewers, TO whom all claims for damages
shnuld be submitted, and none other shall
thereafter be received or allowed and that in
consequence the petitioners were provided with
ample remedy and could not be heard on the
appeal
What Was Held by the City.
The city held that under the ordinance and
section l. of the act the petitioners had power
70 be heard; that section 81 of the act provides
That liens shall not be defeated tor want OF any
ltutIce required by law. or for informalitv or r-
Regularity in proceedings: but this language is
not to be construed to prevent any defense,
Showing want of authority in the CITY or its off.
GERS to do the work, or any other matter affect
ing the merits of the claim.
The court below dismissed plaintiffs appeal
from the Board OF Viewers, and was GER
Counsel for appellants speaking of the ne
CCssIty Of safeguards to the legislative mind,
say that nothing better proves the realizing
need than their growth in the laws from 1886 to
the time Of this act, although our act OF May
10, lSS9. also shows how the rulers of our cities
can sometimes manage legislatures to the great
detriment of every citizens rights and safety"
They claim that the act OF Assembly is uncon-
stitutiOnal and should be treated as local and
special legislation Quoting from section 4
they say: This changes the jurisdiction in
street cases from the Quarter Sessions to the
Common Pleas, and that jurisdiction not to
be exercised, as II had been in the case OF TAX
ing private property for public use but regu-
lated. TO be Gale! INTO being and action only
ON motion Of the CT attorney, and to cease
supposedly, %her "a: official should fail TO in
yUke 1t. The hd:., a. his request. is to create
. special trlbull', sect viewers, which trl-
bunal can be removed, no at the will of tine
Court but az any time on the address of the
Councils. "
Where Some Sections Were at Fault.
This section is held to be void, as it does not
relate to the exercise OF any corporate power
of cities of the second class. but on the con-
trary, relates to tn, practice and procedure in
tLe common law courts OF Allegheny county.
Il is charged that tn eighth section is at fault
in the same way. Appellants ask "whs should
we not have choice between our Common
Pleas Nos and .? We want that choice and
know that purposely deprived of it, bv
legislation very carefully framed to that end IL
They contend that the tenth section
makes distinction between the city and other
sutols and regulates the practice of the courts
The eleventh, twentieth, tweDty-tirsr and
twenty-seCond sections are objected to on SINH
lar grounds. That the legislation 10 avoid be-
ing local in character. the appellants claimed
there must be cities of the second class other
than PIttsburC.
A Curious and Interesting Case.
A rather curious case and at the same time
al interesting one, both to insurance compa-
mes and all who insure. was that of the appeal
OF David Humphreys fromthe Judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas No. ., on a reserved
question. The decision is that if a oneeyed
man takes out an insurance policy which covers
the loss of sight of both eyes and lie loses his
single good eye he must be considered as
though he had been in possession of Two soul-
Iul upuCS. j. w. klnnear was Humphreys at
tOruey, anu stuck 10 the case with great per-
s.>tence, in order 10 establish this point par
ticularly as well as to get all he could for his
client
The National Benefit Association of Indian
apo!is, Ind, insGred Humphreys on Septem-
Der y, 1857, against accidental death and per-
mauent disability 20 the amount of 6 ,0c0 and
for the term of year. The certificate provided
that for injury resulting in permanent dIsa-
Dlllty by the loss of one or more limbs, or both
eyes. within 50 days from the happening of the
injury. the insured still surviving, then in lieu
OF all other benefits and surrender of certifi-
cate, the company would pay for the severing
Of one hand or foot. one-tlird of the policy and
for the severance OF both hands or both feet or
of one hand or one foot, or for the total and
permanent loss of sight of both eyes, the whole
amount OF the policy.
Plaintiff set forth that wears before the issue
Of the certificate he had lost his right eve: that
this was known to J. T. Cunningham general
agent and one Beebe, soliciting agent of The
company anG that Beebe represented to
eye he would be entitled to the full benefit
$1,000
Knocked Out His Only Eye.
On June I5. 1855, eight months after the GER.
titicate was issued, Humphreys, while at his
regular work. was struck on his remaining eye,
and 10 or l5 days later was totally blind and al
ways will remain SO. He made a demand for
The full amount of the policy, and the demand
was refused. On the trial of the case below
the jury found Tor Humphreys for SL056 $500