The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-11-20
JURY saw SAFE DRILLED
Burglary, However, Mas Not the
Purpose OF the Craftsman.
JUDGE ARCHIBALD A WITNESS
II Was Done to Test the Temper or the
M%ctal-Jury Diss greed in One Case.
Reasons for q New Trial In Jcs.
sap Case Filed.

Before Judge Love. of Bellefonte. In
No. 3 court room. the assumpsit suit of
w. C, Townsend, of New York, against
Frank Carlucci, of this city. was put on
trial yesterday and only two witnesses
were examined, all told. Major Everett
Warren represents the plaintiff and At
torneys W. w. Watson and 7. v. Pow
derby, the defendant. The case was
tried before and the jury disagreed.
The amount in dispute Is sl.05S for
granite furnished to Mr.. Carlucci for the
pedestal of the Washington monument
erected on the court house square by
the Patriotic Order Sons OF America, or
Scranton. The two witnesses examined
are representatives of the townsend
company, with which the
made a contract to furnish him the ma
teriai for the pedestal. Their evidence
was in proving the contract n show
ing by other documents in the shape of
kilograms. letters. etc. that the COM
pany did what was required of 1t. Mr..
Carlucci refused to accept the granite
when it arrived for W reasons; n as
he alleged that 1t was not shipped in
time. the other that 1t was of inferior
quality.
The Jury in the case of L,veright,
Greenwald & Co.. of Philadelphia.
against T. +. McDermott and A. Il. Bar
Der disagreed and were discharged.
AlonZo Porter, q colored q was the
foreman of the jury and in answer to
some of the questions of Judge Ed
wards said the jury might agree If they
could hear more evidence. The jury
stood six to six and they We're accord
ingly discharged.
1t IL tie second Disagreement.
This Is the second time the case has
beer tried and each time it resulted in
~ At. TIa a,aytia, xvl,ntla,.
or lot the paper on which the defend
ants signed themselves as security for
Ayres was a sealed one was the tangle
that the jury could not see through.
In the main. court room the asSumpSit
suit of the Cincinnati Safe and Lock
company against NJ. NJ. Dewitt. of this
city, was tried before Judge Archibald,
and in the afternoon the court, counsel
and jury went over to the freight depot
of the Central Railroad of New Jersey
to see a test made of the safe which is
the matter in dispute.
q Mr.. Dewitt purchased h safe from
the plaintiff in the spring of 1891 n in
due time it was shipped here. Before
taking it out of the freight depot the
purchaser caused some n skilled in
the art to get a chisel and hammer and
make a test of 1t to see whether or not
1t was burglar proof, as per agreement.
The expert very easily drilled a small
hole into the outer layer of metal, and
from that Mr.. Dewitt concluded that it
would not be q desirable place to keep
his cash. so he refused to take the safe
or pay for it.
Suit was brought against him and the
jury found a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff for the entire amount of the
claim with interest. A new trial IA
granted by the court on the ground that
Mr.. Dewitt was justified in refusing to
take the safe when he made o test ard
drilled INTO the metal so readily. After
the case was closed for the plaintiff yes
terday Attorneys c. C.. Donovan and
j. w. Carpenter asked the court that
the jury be permitted to go over to the
freight depot to see a test made show
ing whether or not burglars or thieves
could break through and enter in.
They Tested the safe.
The court agreed that this was proper
and accordingly all put on their hats
pears that the outer layer of the metal
is quite malleable and on hat account
it was very easy to drill a hole in it.
But farther in there are ribs of chilled
steel so closely interviewer that no
chisel no matter how highly tempered
could penetrate. A test was made for
the benefit of the judicial spectators.
There was no trouble in drilling
through the outer soft plate. but when
the chilled steel ribs of the interior
were reached. the chisel struck a snag
and could not go any farther. That
satisfied the jury and they came back
to court.
In No. 3 court Judge Edwards presid-
ed at the trial of the suit of Benedict
r. Carr, of Forest City, against c.. d.
Wetherill. of Dunmore, administrator
of the estate of Sarah Carr Wetherill.
his wife. Attorney Charles l.. Hawley
represented the plaintiff and Attorney
e. Fl. Shurtleff the defendant.
The deceased wife of the defendant
on Nov. 6, 1890. bought from her
mother, Mrs. Margaret Carr, of Dun
more, a property and paid for 1t all but
$500. She gave a mortgage for the bal
ance of the purchase money on a lot
on Drinkcr street. and the terms Of
the mortgage were that 1t would be paid
in installments. In consideration Of
boarding with her daughter. Mrs. Carr
gave her q receipt of 1854 on the mort
gage. That is all was paid on it, as
alleged by the plaintiff. who was the
son Of Mrs. Carr. The defendant
claimed he paid the funeral expenses
which amounted to enough with the re-
ceipt for 1854 to make the $500. The
jury found q verdict for the plaintiff
In the sum of S4S5,90
Reasons for New IriaI In .Jcssmr Case.
In the case of Assignee ]. II. Gunster
against George A. Jessup and his sure
ties, Major Everett Warren, of counsel
for the defendants, yesterday filed the
following reasons for q new trial:
"First-The verdict of the Jury Is
against the weight of the evidence.
"Second-The verdict of the jury is
against the charge of the court.
'~Third-The court erred In not affirm
ing the several points of the defendant,
which he refused to affirm.
"Fourth-The court erred in rejecting
the offer to prove that the directors
who had Unidentified DR.. Throop
against the deposits of the bank were
perfectly solvent and able to pay the
same.
Observation-Disclosures evidence,
specifications Of which will be filed 1t
an early date.
"Sixth-Counsel for defendants re-
s~pectfully ask leave to file additional
reasons and more specific ones as soon
as they, have an opportunity to examine
the st~erographic notes of testimony.
as well as the charge of the court and
the answers to the several points sub
mitted by the parties"
Court granted a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be allowed
n made 1t returEabl Dec. G. at 2 p. m.