Evening journal., 1894-11-30
COOPER COMPLAINED
He Thought the Court Both
UDjust t and Unfair.
SEVERAL GASES WERE SETTLED


Two Commlssionera Appointed to Take
Testimony in Divorce suIts-Tha
Parvis and Williams Company won
Verdict.
When Peter L. Cooper appeared in the
Superior Court this morning, after an
absence Of feveral days at Kansas City,
he had bis war paint on, so to speak.
Addressing the court, he said;
IL ara sorry to hear that any cases Of
mine we're ruled for trial In my absence.
had cases set for trial In Kansas City,
Mo-, and knowing that could recelve no
cons liberation from foreign courts and
bell ewing that this court would
tire at me fairly spoke to
Mr.. Ward, member Of the commit
tee for scheduling cases for trial. and
imy friend, Mr. Evans, spoke to aMr
Nields, another member of the committee
asking that none OF my cases be scheduled
before the early part of next week, There
has been mistake somewhere, or
Misunderstanding about the matter, and
| feel rather sore that the court should
have given the Impression to the public
that l had gone away neglecting my
bug siness, when all necessary precautions
hai been taken. | think the court was
boah unjust and unfair in It's criticism.
| Chief Justice Lore replied that there
| " as an apparent mistake or misunder
al anding somewhere. and he wished the
u ewspapers to make note of the matter
The case OF Amanda Wright, d b, a.,
VS.. the Parvis and Williams Company, D.
b., r., was then tried John H Rodney
represent cd the plaintiff and Thomas
Davis this defendant. A jury was drawn.
and Mr.. Rodney stated that the action
was on a promlssory note In the court
below the compaay got Judgment for
500 02, alleged to be due for phos-
phRte purchased In September, 1891.
The note bore her name
but she appesled on the ground that she
had no knowledge OF phosphate having
been purchassd. A. Wright her
husband, wss one OF the company s
agents, and shs signed the note under
the impression that 1t was some debt of
his as agent
She was put on the stand this morn
ing and t'IE tihed to the above facts.
Mr.. Williams, representing the COM
pany, I kstIfed to the purchase and de-
livery 81 the goods
Jud ge Cullen charged the jury and Il
I retir ID, subsequently returning
Il
! Williams Company for $83 50
Peter L Cooper repoitsd settlement oi
Q she several foreign attachments cases
4 against Henry E. Pusey, with Chs
q 4 following awards 10 the plaintiffs
Hubert Cassidy. 1926 80; Edward Null
gan, $277 50; Thomas r Lally, $l01 "a
Thomas McHugh. 1924 In each cas-
there was provision for stay Of execu
n tian for six months.
Ths case OF John B. Fisher. d., b. a.
i W. John o Hamilton. p b r., was, OF
u motion Of Mr.. Bringhurst, continued
\, until the next term.
= Colonel Samuel A. Macallister wa
! appointed commissioner TO take testi
!, mony Ia the divorce case Of William ii
VS. Louisa Bristoe. Peter Il Cooper
!, represents the plaintiff and Josial
~ Marvel the defendant
u The case OF John Mcleod vs. Pete
! j. Sber was placed at the foot Of thl
/. list on account Of some Of the paper
!. having been mislaid.
4. Judgment for the defendant in The
1e sum OF $i5 was given in the case o
- Robert Adams W. Thomas Reardon
q baDf. Mr.. Harrington reported tbs
x settlement.
Id On motion OF William s Hilles th'
he case Of John H Anderson VS. George B
o- Ward was continued until the next tern
or on account Of the absence Of Witnesses
he Ex-Mayor Harrington was, on applies
be tion Of William s. Hilles. appointed com
OF missioner In the divorce case of Beatt.
n VS.. Beatty.
p The general Jury was discharged unit
cd 2 80 o'clock this afternoon, to which tim
IS court took recess.