The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-10-05
A NONSUIT WAS REFUSED
Judge Lynch Rules That the Jury
Must Decide the Potter Case.
ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY
Dsfsndauts Side Of Case opened BY
Attorney Horace E. iland-sevcra, Vcr'
diets Rendered Rank
and G. N. Watson Are at Law.

Judge Lynch refused to grant q nom
suit In the Potter trespass suit against
the Traction company. and the defend-
ants side OF the case was opened py
Attorney Horace T.. Hand. Superin-
tendent Robert +. Fox and Line Fore
man Andrew Conlon were called TO the
stand. Their testimony was more Tor
proving certain things than with view
toward offsetting any OF the plaintin's
evidence.
John Riley was one OF the linemen
employed on the ladders the day Mr..
Potter's horse ran away. He was up
on the ladders when Mr.. Potter's team
turned around the corner. Riley saw
the animals prance and get scared. ana.
fearing that they would run into the
ladder and upset the rigging. the Wit
ness proceeded to get down as fast as
his legs could carry him: he was also
figuring on taking jump when he
got close enough to the ground. Mr..
Riley said that these ladders Were used
for the first time that day.
The ladders Were brought to court
and offered in evidence. The model OF
the tracks. poles and wires was also
offered in evidence. Tyler Connolly
was sworn He lost his bearings sew
eral times on cross-examination by At
torney Burns. He was an eye witness
Of the accident and told long story
about It. At that time he was In the
employ of the Traction company. and
he was waiting for a car to go to No.
8 when Mr.. Potter drove along.
Would DC n Good Witness.
Mr.. Burns wanted to know n the
witness had not advised Mr.. Potter to
bring an action against the company.
and had he not promised. In case of
such action, that ne would be good
witness for him. Mr.. Connolly swore
that when Mr.. Potter drove along. and
after the team turned the corner on
Blakely street, the animals stopped for
a minute or more.
In order to test his accuracy on COM
putting time Mr.. Burns asked the wit
ness to hold up his hand for the space
of a minute and he would hold the
watch The court sustained the OBJ
lection of the defendants counsel. but
ruled that II was optional with the
witness whether he would or would not
hold up his hand. Mr.. Connolly said
he wouldn't hold up his hand for
minute as long as he didn't have to.
Then Mr.. Burns pursued another tack:
he took out his watch and told the
witness to say when minute had
elapsed. Silence reigned supreme for
twenty seconds and at the end Of this
period Mr.. Connolly said the minute
was up. Mr.. Burns broke into a deri
sive smile and asked II the standard
judgment of the witness could be
guaged from the measurement OF time.
At adjournment Judge Lynch ordered
the jury and all concerned to be and
appear in their proper places at 1880
Monday morning. when the trial of the
case will be resumed. 1t will take up
the greater part of next week. The
three criminal courts will be going. and
1t is likely that the Potter suit will be
transferred to the United States fed
eral court room.
BARBER Dealt in Brick.
In the main court room Judge Ed
wards presided at the trial of the suit
Of Ira T. Barber against the Scranton
Glass company. Attorneys Joseph
O'Brien and w. w. Baylor appeared 70,
the plaintiff and Watson & Diehl for
the defendant The difference between
the parties is $21S. which the plaintiff
claimed for commission for selling 435
thousand Of brick. The jury had not
agreed upon verdict at adjournment.
In No. 8 court room Judge Gunster
heard the suit of Attorney j. NJ. c.
Ranck against Attorney George M.Wat-
son. Attorneys A. A. Vosburg and c.
w. Dawson represented the plaintiff.
and Attorney ]. w. Carpenter the de-
fendant The case was tried before,
and new trial was granted. 1t Is to
recover $3.50. the alleged balance of
purchase money on fifteen feet Of land
bought by the defendant from the
plaintiff. The case went to the jury at
adjournment.
Verdicts were taken by agreement In
three cases. In the case Of Walter and
others against the I.ackawanna Trust
and Safe Deposit company the verdict
was for the defendant; In the case of
Patrick F. May against John w. Millet
and others a verdict was taken for the
defendant; and In the case OF Mrs.
Ellen ODonnell against John Tighe,
the verdict was for the plaintiff In the
sum of $113.49, the full amount of the
claim.
Rule for New Trial.
A rule was granted by the court
to show cause why there should not be
a new trial In the case Of the Universal
Fashion company. Of New York.
against John III. Ladwlg. The jury
rendered verdict of single damages,
$3.50. in favor Of the plaintiff. In the
case OF George w. Cramer and John w.
Cure against William q. Miller. The
verdict In the case of Ambrose Mulley
George Fl. Shoemaker was for the de-
PENDANTS. The attorneys for the plain
tiff will ask for a new trial. The YER
dict was in large measure due to
the skillful preparation OF the case by
Attorney John F. Murphy for the de-
fendant.