The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-01-30
new TRIAL IN MUNLEY Case
Judge Archibald DiscOurseS on Pro-
pounding Questions to Jury.
HE THINKS 1T is BENEFICIAL
Aids the Court in Ascertaining If an In.
tclligcnt Verdict Has Been Rendered
and Keeps Check on Uncertainty
Of General Vcrdicts.

In an opinion handed down by Judge
| Archibald yesterday afternoon a new
trial was granted i'm the case of Mrs.
| Ann Munley against the city of Scran-
| ton.
Patrick Munley, of Archibald, on Nov.
20, 1889, was in this city and while
passing along lower Lackawanna ave-
nue. fell from temporary sidewalk
into an air lot owned by John Hull, on
which a brick store building was then
being erected
Mr.. Munley was killed by the fall and
his widow, Mrs. Ann Munley, brought
suits against Mr.. Hull, the owner Of
the property, and the city of Scranton
to recover damages.
The case against Mr.. Hull was tried
about year ago and nonsult granted
ON the ground that he was not the per-
son responsible for the accident. In
November last the case against the city
was called and the jury returned Il
verdict in favor of Mrs. Munley for
$1,000.
Jury Wanted Information.
While the jury was deliberating on
the case 1t came into court and asked
If the testimony of Patrolman Walsh
who was the only eye witness to the
accident should be considered. One Of
the jury also asked the court to tell
him whether or not man was drunk
when he was intoxicated. The opinion
of Judge Archibald granting new trial
Is In part as follows:
The purpose of propounding ques-
tions to jury and requiring them to
make answer thereto in addition to
their general verdict is not only to as
sist them in arriving a an intelligent
verdict, but to enable the court to
know whether they have done 50. The
value of this practice as check upon
the uncertainty of a general verdict
will be better appreciated when we
have had little longer experience of it.
1t is recommended by Justice Will
Jams in his address at the commence
ment of the Dickinson Law school in
June last and might well be made the
subject of legislative action. Its i'm
portance is eXemplified here. One Of the
| most material points in the city's de-
fense was the alleged intoxcation of
Munley, the subject of the accident.
Weight Of Evidence Other Way.
IF he was in this condition and fell
into the cellar on account of it, the
plaintiff clearly could not recover.
While there was some slight evidence
to the contrary, sufficient, perhaps, to
carry the case to the jury, the weight of
the evidence was the other way. 1t was
in view of this that the questions sub
| mitted to the jury were formed as they
were. The fourth and fifth required
them to state whether or not Munley
| was intoxicated, and if he was whether
it was on that account that he fell into
the cellar, and in case these were mega
tived they We're called upon by the
sixth question to state briefly how the
| accident happened.
THE latter was designedly a very
searching inquiry. Its purpose was to
compel the jury if they found that Mum
| ley was not intoxicated-agains the
plain weight of the evidence-to give a
consistent account of how ii came
about, and one that could be justified
| from the evidence. 1t was only by a
satisfactory response to it that a ver-
dict against the city would be war;
ranted. The answer which they make
| certainly does not come up to this re-
| quirement.
One Sided Answers.
Having negatived the fourth and
| fifth questions, they say to the sixth
and seventh 80 the best of our knowl-
| edge this accident to Patrick Munley
was caused by the imperfect condition
of the sidewalk and guard rail-
THE difficulty with this is that while
| 1t may account for the accident from
the side of the city, it does not do So
from that of Munley, and that is what
the question was solely directed to.
The purpose of 1t thus has been entirely
lost. If, then, we allow this
question to pass with no more specific
answer than we have. we surrender the
whole purpose of propounding ques-
tions to the jury and might as well
| not have undertaken 1t. They might
just as well have been permitted to
render general verdict.
But there is another substantial rea-
son why a new trial should be granted.
The colloquy between the court and the
! jury when they returned for instruc-
tions leaves 1t in grave doubt whether
they properly considered the evidence
| submitted to them. and the verdict
which they have rendered strongly con-
| firms this idea. The alleged intoxica-
| ton of Munley was, as we might say.
| the turning point of Hie case, and it
was established by the testimony of
officer Walsh, the only eye witness to
the accident and only feebly called in
question by that of Saloonkeeper Jones.
There is enough in what we
| have said to award new trial, and the
| rule to that effect is, therefore, made