The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-11-23
five THOUSAND DOLLARS
Motion for New Trial in the Nun
ley Case.
VERDICT AGAINST THE CITY
Binding Instructions Given to the Jury in
the Suit of Jones Against the City.
Damage Suit Against Carbon.
dale Traction Company.
VERDICT AGAINST THE CITY

In the trespass suit of Mrs. Ann Mum
ley, of Jermyn, whose husband, Pat
rick, died from injuries received on the
night of Thanksgiving Day, 1889, by
falling into the excavation on John L.
Hulps air lot on lower Lackawanna ave-
nue., the jury yesterday morning rem
dered the substantial verdict of $4,000.
The suit was brought for $4,000. This
Is the largest verdict recorded against
the city of Scranton since it was in
corporated
Munley had fallen into the eXcava-
ton on the night mentioned while he
was running to catch train on the
Delaware and Hudson railroad.
His widow sued John l.. Hull, owner
of the property but Judge Archibald
non-suited the case on the ground that
Munley was drunk. In the trial just
ended the testimony was not so posi-
tive and Judge Archibald let the case go
to the jury.
Questions for the Jury.
He framed for the jury six questions
which he directed them to answer and
render special verdict aside from the
general verdict. The questions and an
swers as they were answered by the
jury are as follows:
/. Was the place of the accident so pro-
tected as to make it reasonably safe?
Answer-No. ..-
g. Was It SO protected that a person by
the use of ordinary care could have passed
by on the sidewalk in safety?
Answer-No.
g. If II was not reasonably safe in what
respect was ii unsafe or insufiiciently
protected? Of the first question is an
swered 'yes" the third question need not
be answered).
Answer-We do not think 1t was suifi-
ciently guarded
4. Was Patrick Munley intoxicated, or
under the influence of liquor at the time
of the accident?
Answer-No.
s. If Patrick Munley was in an intoSi-
Gated condition at the time of the acci-
dent, was 1t on account of that condition
that he fell and stumbled into the cell
lar?
Answer-No,
G. If you answer the fifth or sixth ques-
tlon mo-" state briefly how the accident
happened.
Answef-In reply to question fifth: TO
the best of our knowledge this accident to
Patrick Munley was caused by the imper-
feet condition of the sidewalk and guard
rail.
After the verdict was filed City Solic-
itor j. H. Torrey made a motion for
new trial and Judge Archibald granted
n rule to show cause why new trial
should not be granted, returnable at
argument court
In the other suit against the city, that
of Stephen Jones, who sued to dispos-
sess the city of certain lot of ground
situated along North Washington ave-
nue., which the city unjustly seized in
opening said avenue, the court gave
binding instruction, to the jury and a
verdict was rendered in favor of the
plaintiff. ,F
The jury that heard the case of the
Hawley Glass company against Bot
tier ]. II. Davitt returned with YER
dict amounting to $74O4 in favor of the
plaintiff.
Suit Against Winton Borough.
In the suit of Michael Murray and his
wife against the borough of Winton
Judge Albright refused the motion for
q non-suit. Errors in the declaration
of the plaintiff were discovered and
yesterday morning eX-Judge Stanton
and Attorneys Hulslander & Vosburg
appeared in court with an amended
declaration. Ex-Judge Jessup, of the
counsel for the defendant, pleaded sur
prise and court then withdrew a juror
and continued the suit. Court also al.
lowed the amended declaration to be
filed in the case.
With the termination of these cases
there was but one more on the list fol
the week, the tresspass suit Of William
May against the Carbondale Traction
company. The case was put on tria
before Judge Archibald in court room
No. and a jury drawn. All the othel
jurors for the week were discharged
from further attendance.