The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-06-21
AGAINST DR.. D.b. HAND
Verdict for the Telephone Company in the
Famous IreSpaSS Case.
Will APPLY FOR A new TRIAL
Attorney 3. Price says the Case
Against the Telephone Company
Will Be Pushed Until the Question
of Its Liability Is Definitely Settled.
Reasons Why a New Trial Should
Be Granted.

After court opened yesterday morn
ing the jury in the case of DR.. ID. B.
Hand against the Central >Pennsyl-
vania Telephone and Supply company
brought its verdict into court, it hay-
ing been agreed upon Tuesday evening
at o'clock. The verdict was in favor
of the defendant company
One of the jurors said yesterday TO
Il TRIBUNE reporter that the jury had
much difficulty in agreeing tut that
the members finally came to the con
cluEion that the electric railway COM
was more to blame for the accident
than the telephone company and hence
they gave verdict in favor of tho de-
fendant
When DR.. Hand instituted proceed
ings he lodged actions against the Tel.
ephone company, Peoples Street Rail-
way company, and the city Of Scran-
ton, The last two cases are still pend
ing.
Whom seen by n TRIBUNE reporter
yesterday, S. B, Price. leading counsel
for the plaintiff, sAid tho case against
the Telephone company will be pur.
sued until the question Of Its liability
for the accident ia definitely settled be
fore the other cases are taken up. He
says he will Opp!y for new trial at
once, and has prepared the following
reasons why one should be gran ted:
REASONS FOR NEW TRIAL.
First-The court erred in rejecting the
offer Of evidence to explain the testimony
of DR.. Dolan, and to STOW that he was
mistaken in his testimony.
Second-The court erred in the COM
ments made to the jury on the evidence
of Dr. DUlan.
Third-The court erred in instructing
the jury that there was no negligence in
the use of wire when half or two-thirds
OF II was rusted off.
Fourth-The court erred in saying that
the duty Of the defendant as to the wire
down in the street depended on the danger
to be apprehended More or less danger
was to be appreheIded from the wire
being down in the street, but Independent
of this 1t was the duty of the company 20
remove the wire from the street rs soou
after knowledge of its falling had been re.
ceived as possible, and the jury should have
been so instructed. When the wire fell in
the street and the company had notice of
it, or as soon thereafter as it was possible
to take it from the street, the company
was trespasser and liaol5 for any damage
occasioned By the wire, whether the injury
was to be apprehended from the fact tina.
the wire was in the street, or not.
Fifth-The court erred in the instruction
to the jury with regard to the guard wire
between the telephone wires and the guy
wires of the street railway. The evidence
was that the guard wires were in use be-
fore and at the time of the accident in
other places, aud that such guard wires
protected the telephone wires from con.
tact with the wires Of the Peoples Street
railway.
Sixth-The court erred in the answers
to PLAINTIFF po lnts, the numbers of which
cannot now De recalled; wherein the in
struction to the jury as requested was de-
MED.
ERRED IN ITS CHARGE,
Seventh-The court erred in charging
the jury that whether or not the company
was given license to erect the telephone
system, was question which was elimi-
mated from the case and in instructing the
jury that the ordinance and contracts re-
lating to the postal service and fire alarm
was equivalent to the license required by
the acts Of assembly Of 1874 and 1875 and
supplements.
Eighth-The court also erred In the in
structlon to the jury that in this case it
was necessary for the plaintiff to prove
negligence in the construction and mainte.
nance of lis wires because the plaintiffs
declaration alleged negligence therein. II
is not necessary to prove all the allega.
tions set forth in the declaration. if such
portion is proved as constitute, the grounds
of an action recognized by law. ANY other
material facts stated are merely surplus
sage.
Ninth.The court erred in the instruc-
tion to the jury that If they believed the
defendant, after notice Of trouble on the
wire, did all they could to repair it and
were unable to make the necessary re-
pairs, there was no negligence, This was
wrong, because it was not necessary to
make the repairs in order to remove the
danger. The wire could have been cut
and drawn from the street in moments
time, and the injury averted.
Tenth-The court erred in not instruct
ing the jury that If Michael Henry, an
employee OF the company,sent to look for
trouble, was at the cornor Of Ninth street
aud Lackawanna avenue about 2 o'clock,
and they believed the testimony of the
plaintiffs witnesses, Diehl Fuller and one
other, that the wire had fallen into the
street before that time: there was evidence
from which the jury could infer negli-
gence.
Eleventh-The court erred also in not
instructing the jury in accordance with
the point presented by the plaintiffs coun-
sci, that if the telephone wire fell on the
street railway wire and thus obtained
current ef electricity which killed DR..
Hands horse and severely shocked him,
the verdict of the jury must be for the
plaintiff, whether the defendant was guilty
Of negligence or not.