The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-11-26
That MUNLEY Case AGAIN
NoN Having Its Fourth Hearing Be-
fore q Jury In Court.
THE EAR or SAMMY sCHLOss
1t Was Removed nv . Dog and Is
Responsible for q Trespass Case
on Trial Before Judge Gunstcr
In Court Room No. 3.

Judge Schuyler, of Easton, is assist
Ing h local judges in d~isposing of
cases this week, which Ia the last of the
November term Of m pleas court.
He Is presiding in Nc. 2 court room and
the case Of Mrs. Ann Munley against
the city Of Scranton was called before
him for trial. Major Everett Warren
and City Solicitor TOrrey. represent
the defendant. and ounsel for the
plaintiff are Attorneys 1. H.. Burns and
Joseph O'Brien.
A coincidence of the trial is that on
Nov. 20. 1889. exactly six years ago
yesterday. Patrick Munley, husband of
the plaintiff, fell down the open area
where the John L. Hull building now
stands on Lackawanna avenue, and
died the same night from the injuries
sustained, and that for that accident
the wife of the deceased ia now suing
for $25. 900 damages. This Is the fourth
time the case has been on trial. The
first time the jury brought in a verdict
Of 5000 against the city: the second
time the jury could not agree and now
1t is before a jury again. The other
time mentioned John l.. Hull. the own
err Of the lot, was defendant and court
non-suited the case.
Patrick Munley was on his way to
the Delaware and Hudson station, then
on Bridge street. to take the Ills pas
senger train on the Delaware and Hud-
son railroad for ELEPHANT. He was or
his way down Lackawanna avenue on
the right hand side, going toward the
bridge. and when he reached the Hull
building. a plank sidewalk had been
built and a deep excavation had been
made. underneath it. He was in a
hurry to reach the station. and as
the plaintiff alleges. was using withal
due diligence. but the insecure condi-
ton of the sidewalk vas responsible
for the accident for which damages are
now asked.
Says It Vas Munlcy's Own Fault.
On the former trials of the Ease the
contention of the defendant was that
the sidewalk was sufficiently well
guarded to enable any person to pass
along without any degree Of danger,
providing reasonable care and diligence
had been exercised. Evidence was
elected to prove that Munley vas IN
der the influence Of liquor and contrib
uted to his own misfortune. which in
such case. would relieve the city Of
any liability for damages for his death.
Four witnesses were heard up to adj
journment. The first two were Sur
veyors c. F. Mates and A. 3. Dun
ming, jr. A Mr. Dunkerly gave unim-
portant testimony. . Jeweler Louis
Reichert was heard; the time of Mum
ley's death Mr.. Reichert's store was on
lower Lackawanna avenue, next door
to the Hull building. From his story
there was negligence on the part of
some one for the insecure manner in
which pedestrians were protected from
tumbling down on the Delaware and
Hudson railroad tracks to their death.
He admitted that the sidewalk was
safe enough for my person using prop
err care, but the guard rail was very
unstable.
A model Of the sidewalk. guard rail
and premises as they existed when the
plaintiffs husband was killed. rests on
the plaintiffs table. Judge Schuyler
cautioned the jury to talk to no one
outside of court concerning the case.
1t will be resumed at 8 o'clock this
morning.
His Ear Was Chcwcd OFF.
The %trespass suit of Jacob Schloss
against Frank M. Cobb Is on trial be-
fore Judge Gunster in No. g court
room. Attorneys John p. Kelley and
M. w. Lowry represent the defendant,
and Attorney George s. Horn the plain
iii. Inc suit was trleO before and
the jury disagreed. The PLAINTIFF wants
$4,000 damages from Mr.. Cobb. the we'll
known horse dealer. for the loss of an
ear, sustained by his son. Sammy, a
youth about IL years old. On Feb.
5, 1893, a dog chewed the ear off the
boy, and 1t Is alleged that Mr.. Cobb's
dog performed the operation.
The plaintiff had much testimony to
show that Mr.. Cobb offered to settle the
damages. which might be taken as a
presumption that he acknowledged
ownership of the dog. The defendants
case opened at 4 o'clock and the sub
stance Of 1t is that the dog was not
around when the boy was bitten, that
1t was absent, having followed the SER
want girl to the butcher shop. The
defendants apparent readiness to set
tie the case for SIS a accounted for
in this way; that he would prefer pay
ing a few dollars, even though he was
confident his dog did not bite the boy.
rather than become defendant in a law
suit in court.
A Divorce for IlaIdcman.
The ease Of James Haldeman against
Irene Haldeman was called before
Judge Archibald In the main court room
and O jury was sworn. 1t was a d.
vorce case. The husband some time
ago filed a libel in divorce on the
ground Of desertion. Mrs. Haldeman
answered and responded that her hus-
I--I 1-l -- 49, 49, $1,000