Evening journal., 1895-12-18
CAMERON IS A WINNER.
Won His SANDER Suit Against
DR.. Corkran.
ONLY NOMINAL DAMAGES AWARDED

The Evidence All in and Argument
Concluded Yesterday Afternoon-Ju ury
Charged by Judge Cullen This Morn
iDg-oase Of Martha A. BOYD VS. james
Morrow Now on Trial.
Before the Superior Court adjourned
yesterday afternoon Sll the testimony
was In 10 The slander case OF Cameron vs..
Corkran. and the opposing counsel had
completed argument to the jury. each
side having been limited to forty Eve
minutes.
Completion OF the cross.examination Of
DR. Corkrau was the frit feature Of the
afternoon session Nothing particularly
new or important developed.
Dr.. James A. Draper was called BY Nj
Ward, shown the prescription In con-
troversy and requested TO state the effect
Of such q compound upon IA months
old child in the condition Of health
attributed TO the Kelieher baby.
Mr. Cooper, for the plaintiff. entered an
objection, and was suHtsined BY the
court.
DR.. Draper left the staud without
ans aering
Mr. Ward called Miss Jennie Long
street, OF No 1906 Lancaster avenue, u
prove that Miss Bachman. Of her &C
| quslntsnoe had bad prescription filed
At Cameron's pharmacy and that IL Was
improperly compounded
Mr. Cooper, still 10 the objective mood
secured tie ruling out of this witness
and she went TO keep Dr. Draper com
pany, the two being Joined very shortly
By Willard E. Smith, a druggist, who
was not permitted TO state the amount Of
business he had done this year as com
pared with that OF last year Mr. Wards
object WAS 90 show that there had been
q general falling eff Ia trade which must
have affected Cameroh's place as well
DR.. Corkran, recalled denied that he
said the words about Cameron which
had bsen attributed TO him With this
the defense rested.
Mrs. Kelleher and Mrs Ford we're
recalled 10 rsbut this, Gs was also
Cameron, bat he vas not allowed to
Argument on the 50 900 claim fol
lowed, and the chRrgs was reserved
until this morning.
Associate Judge Cnllen delivered the
charge, which was both able and
impartial At 10 90 the jury retired
At u 30 O'clock the Cameron Corkrsn
jury returned a verdict for $95 80, be
sides six cents and costs, thereby vindiea
ting the druggist The award created
much merriment, especially among the
lawyers
The elander case disposed Of, that Of
Martha A. Boyd VS. James Morrow wrs
taken up, little diff Guilty being
experienced in getting a jury R9bsrt
G Harman and Horace Greeley Knowles
wers the plaintiffs attorneys Harry
Emmons c nducted the defense This
i5 the cass which figured 90 prominently
iu Chaneery some months ago which was
subsequently Transferred from that court
to the Superior Court The sction Is
to recover $S25 with interest from March
20 1884 It being alleged that the de
fenoant failed to satisfy g mortgage In
behalf Of Mrs. Boyd, contrary to
promise
George G Robinson, the surviving
trustee Of Mrs Boyd testified to the
transactions which led up to the present
suit over the Workingmen's Loan Asso-
citation mortgage
William BOYD was called to testify 10 a
conversation that he had With George o
Maris. secretary Of the Workingmen's 8
Association, relative to the satisfying Of
the mortgage, but he was not allowed to
20 very far before the court stopped him
on an obisction made by Mr. Emmons.
George @ MRris, secretary and
treasurer Of the loan. identified paper
aud his signature attached, and II WAS
offered In evidence.
Mr. Emmons wished TO prove a certain
receipt. but was prevented because IL was
not Ia the line OF cross examination.
Martha A Boyd was called 10 testify 10
certain conversation she hsd With George
@ Robinson relative TO the uortgsge,
| but the testimony WAS ruled out.
Messrs Herman and Knowles closed
their case.
Mr.. Emmons hesltated about putting
In any testimony, but ut last concluded
to do so. after stating that Morrow had
paid off the mortgage with his own
money
he called George G Maris to the stand
! lie identified q receipt for $S25. given to
Morrow by him "a treasurer OF
/ the loan The amount due on the
original 50. 600 mortgage was 81, 40l 3s,
| but the loan agreed 10 satisfy 10 upon
receipt Of 1925 from Morrow. He said
that his receipt on the mortgage merely
Implied that the loan association had no
I further claim upon the property covered
by the mortgage II did not ueRn that
Mr Morrow had no further claim Mr.
MGris had no recollection Of receiving
special authority from Me-. Morrow to
mark satisfaction upon the mortgage in
controversy
Chief Justice Lore took the stand. He
stated that Albert N. Watson told him
on april 46, 1882, that the So, 600 Of Mrs
Boyd's WAS invested, 81 00O being In a
mortgage on land adjoining eph Pyle's
property, and 81 600 ia their business.
81. 100 OF which sum they had on hand
and would soon have the other.
James Morrow testified that it wes his
money that he used in satisfying the
loan association mortgage and that he
never received 81 Of il from the Robin
sons or MIS- Boyd.