The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-11-12
smith WOULD NOT STAY
After Court Refused q Change of Venue
He Left the Court Room.
JENNINGS CASE NON-sUlTED
No One Present to Try Mr.. Jennings Sen.
sntiOnal Conspiracy Case-Mr. smith
Says tic viii Take an Appeal
to the supreme Court.

eplSOue yesterday. Inc NoNeHiuSi 'e'H'
OF common pleas court opened yester-
day morning with three judges on the
bench. Judge II. Nj. Edwards in the
main court room, Judge Gunster In No.
3 court. and Judge Mcpherson. of Har-
risburg, Judge of the Dauphin county
courts, in No court room.
The first case on the trial list was the
trespass suit of John G. Jennings;
against the Lehigh Valley Railroad
company, Judge +. w. Archibald, Judge
T.. \. Willard. Major Everett warren
Attorney J. II. Burns. Attorney Lemu-
el Amerman, ProthonOtary Clarence t.
PRYOR. Deputy prothonotary Myron
Kasson and Detective Thomas b.
Reynolds. asking for damages In the
modest sum of 100000.
The case resulted disastrously for
Smith and Jennings. They were rout,
ed. The court granted a nonsuit and
the next step in the matter will be
when Mi. Smith goes before the Su-
prcme court. He was seen by a Trib'
une reporter yesterday afternoon and
court right away.
This colossal suit was based upon
the ground that the defendants con-
spired to defeat the ends of justice and
injure John G.. Jennings in his action
against the Lehigh Valley company.
When the case was called for trial yes
terday morning Judges Edwards and
Gunster were upon the bench i'm the
main court. Attorneys j. Alton Davis.
C. Comegys, Joseph O'Brien and John
=. Kelley appeared for the defend
ants. Attorney Smith was alone in the
interest Of the plaintiff.
Jennings Had Back Scat.
Judge Archibald, Attorneys Burns
Warran and Amerman and MyrOn
Kasson were all of the defend
ants who We're present. They sat be-
side their attorneys. Mr.. Jennings was
in the rear of the court room. When
the time was at hand for jury to be
drawn Mr.. Smith advanced and asked
for a continuance. This was refused
and he applied for a change of venue.
Attorney Davis opposed the change of
venue on the ground that the petition
for 1t came too late. that the plaintiffs
application should have been made last
week.
Mr.. Smith argued that no notice had
been served upon him that the case had
been set down for trial at the head OF
the list, and. therefore, he had not suffi-
cient time to lay grounds for a change
of venue. The judges left the bench
after listening to some argument and
consulted for few minutes. Upon
re-appearing, Judge Edwards said that
they would continue the case for two
weeks to give Mr.. Smith and his client
time to produce evidence to support
his reasons for a change of venue.
Before the order was signed Attorney
Davis said that the only evidence nee
essary for a change of venue was that
of the petitioner, and as Mr.. Jennings
was in court he ought to be brought
forward forthwith to give the reasons
why he could not get a fair trial in
Lackawanna county. Mr.. Smith then
presented petition asking the court to
grant him a reasonable time to sub
poena his witnesses and produce them
in court
Mr.. Smith Had Delayed.
Judge Gunster refused this motion
and told Smith to bring them forward
without any further delay. Judge Ed
wards said that the case was advanced
upon the list because 1t was Of such a
nature as to require speedy action. Mr..
Smith evidently knew that it was on
the list and that is the reason why the
court refused the continuance. The
plaintiff allowed thirty-five days to
elapse since this case was on the list
without presenting his motion for a
change In venue
OIilltH Sdlu IL was lcT
him to produce witnesses for his appeal
for change of venue and that he
would be glad to go to trial tomorrow IL
he could. In answer to this statement
Major Warren said:
"Your Honor, I desire to say that the
application Is based on the fourth para
graph In the act relating to change of
Venue which provides that If 1t shall
appear by the oath of the plaintiff that
local prejudice exists and that fair
trial cannot be had the change of
venue shall be made. John GJennings.
the plaintiff, sits right there. This case
involves the integrity of the officials OF
this county, ard of the members of this
bar, and II is a reiteration of the most
scandalous accusations against the liv-
ing and the dead. and I submit If this
party can show any local prejudice let
him come here and show II now. Let
us have some action by the court that
will bring an end to this business. We
ask your Honor in the name of justice
and out of respect to this court and to
the members of the bar. to have this
case heard at once. If his accusations
are true give him change of venue II
they are not true let the case be tried
now, and let us have an end to these
accusations If they are true these
gentlemen and myself ought to be in
states prison, and If they are not true,
Mr.. Smith ought to be promptly dis
barred"
Jennings on the stand
Mr. Jennings was called to the stand
in the afternoon and questioned by At
torney Smith. Jennings said he remem-
bered we'll the second trial of his case
against the Lehigh Valley railroad and
was OF the opinion that he could not get
justice. His testimony was brief. Mr..
Smith again asked for more time and
was answered by Judge Edwards as
follows:
"This case was advanced by us upon
the trial list so that It should be speed
lily disposed Of. the official position of
some of the defendants and their con-
nection with our courts being such that
In our Judgment in the interests of the
administration of justice a speedy dis
position Of the case was desirable.
When the case was called for trial
PLAINTIFFS attorney moved for q con-
tinuance on the ground that he had no
notice that the case was specially Or
dered on the trial list The trial list
having been made uD thirty-five days
before the day of trial, this motion was
refused. The plaintiff then filed his
petition asking for a change of venue.
rule was granted returnable forth
with to show cause why a change of
venue should not be made.
1--WE think this motion should have
been made before the case was called
for trial. but we concluded to hear evi-
dence In support Of the petition and
rule. The main ground of the petition
is that some of the defendants are
county officials, and that by reason
thereof such local prejudice exists as
will prevent a fair trial of the plain
tiffs case. The evidence establishes
the official character of two of the
defendants but 1t is utterly insufficient
to sustain the allegation Of local preju-
ino