Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-11-08
CL00NAN MUST HANG.
The Supreme Court Refuses a New
Trial to the Wife Murderer.
A PLEA OF DRUNKENNESS FAILS.
Costs Placed on Liquor Dealers Associa-
tion Detective.
THE NEWS OF THE COUNTY COURTS

In the Supreme Court yesterday an opin.
ion was handed down refusing new trial
for Dennis Cloonan, who was convicted
some time ago of the murder of his wife.
The decision is per curiam decision, and
the Court says:
'The appellant was convicted of murder
In the first degree. He now complains that
the court below rejected certain testimony
offered for the purpose of showing he was
intoxicated at the time he committed the
crime. The evidence rejected did not
measure up to this standpoint. AT
most it would have shown that he had
liquor in his house and might have drank
it. This was not specific enough, and the
court below was right in rejecting it.
There was also an offer to prove that the
prisoner was drunk at some other time and
the effect on him. This was properly re-
jected. The fourth specification was not
assigned and will not be considered. The
Judgment is affirmed and it is ordered that
the record be remitted to the court below
for the purpose of execution"
In the case of Walker VS. Upper and
others Justice Mitchell handed down an
opinion in which he says: "The question
is whether the agreement between the four
defendants made them partners.
No Definition of Partnership.
mo general definition of partnership has
vet been given, which applies without
qualification to all the infinite variety of
business arrangements in this great COM
mercial age, but the essential element uni
Al =.
its. But even this does not universally
create partnerships. The modern English
law states that direct participation in prof
its such is cogent but not conclusive evil
deace of partnership. This is generally the
most accepted, though it is conceded that
its presence is not conclusive in favor, its
absence may be regarded as conclusive
against partnerships"
This suit grew ont of an oil well transac-
tion and the Court ds that there was no
distinct understanding of a division of
profits and no responsibility on the part of
each of the joint lessees and no Joint owner
ship The decision of the lower court is
reversed
In the appeal of Thomas Clulow and
others from the Common Pleas of Venango
county, Chief Justice Paxson handed down
the opinion. The suit was for damages by
the breaking down of bridge. Chief JUS
tice Paxson. in his opinion, saws: The |
plaintiffs contend that the township was
negligent in not knowing the unsound con-
dition OF the bridge There was no evidence |
that the township knew the bridge was un-
safe or the timbers rotten. If the plaintiffs |
examined it before crossing, as the say |
they did, and did not find the detect, it |
comes with bad grace to charge the town.
ship with negligence in not discovering it.
The decision of the lower court is affirmed. |
A Long List of Decisions.
The other decisions rendered were:
New Castle & Northern Railway Company
VS. New Castle & Shenango Valley Railway
Company, appeal Common Pleas Lawrence.
Affirmed.
Sessions OF Clarion. Affirmed.
Evans VS. Mckee, appeal Common Pleas
Mercer county. Affirmed.
Goods appeal. Appeal Orphans Court of |
Armstrong county. Affirmed.
Budd vs. Finley, appeal Common Pleas
W Westmorelund county. Affirmed.
Smiths appeal, Common Pleas of Greene |
county. Affirmed.
Railroad company VS. Egbert. appeal Com
mon Pleas Venango county. Affirmed.
Welsh VS. Huckenstein, appeal Common |
Pleas Westmoreland county. Affirmed.
Sweeney VS. Barrett, appeal Common Pleas
Venanso county. Affirmed.
Nerners' appeal. Common Pleas of Clarion
county. Affirmed.
By Mitchell j.: Countryman's estate and
Hays appeal from the Orphans Court of
Somerset Affirmed.
Woodburn's appeal, Orphans Court of
Washing; on. Reversed
The following orders were handed down
In Eastern district cases:
Ham vs. Delaware ana Hudson Canal CON-
nany. Reargument ordered.
Turnpike tompany's appeal from the c.
L. OF Lancaster. Reargument refused.
Appeal of Henry L. Karchner. Reargu-
ment refused.
Francis Drummer VS. American Telegraph
ana Telephone Company; appeal c. P. of
Derkes. Reargumcnt refused
sykes VS. Thornton; anpeal c. P. No. of
Appeal quashed
McAskin's appeal. Rearsument ordered |