The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-09-30

Inc tfeSNaSS SUIT OF Maggie noZele
against j. NJ. Atherton, both of the
North End, was not put on trial yester-
day in court, for the reason that an
important witness living in Philadel-
rhia could not get here. and the case
went over until next term. In the
case of Adam Brooks against II. l..
Sansenbaugh for "a milk bin, the jury
found verdict for the plaintiff i'll the
sum of $l2G6O with interest from April
|. 1894.
A case which was listened to with
great interest was that ia which Harry
NJ. spencer, of Dunnort, was plalntili,
and Albert Conrad defendant. At
turney r.. &. Newcumb represented Mr..
Spencer and Attorney George -. Taylor
Mr. Conrad. y few years ago AS Mr..
Spencer was reading over Sporting
Life IA publication devoted to the inter
estS of suurtslnen, he saw an 'ad
where Il man in the west had Il valua bie
pup for sale, one with Il good pedigree
and Of II stock that mad become noted.
He bought the pap. paying about $i'
for ii and the cost of expressing II her"
MAS about 81 more. In time the deg uc-
ycloped into "a valuable ACQUISITION to
Mr.. Spencrr'S kennel both for its value
as a hunter and for breeding purposes.
ON June s. 1884 the deg was shot and
Killed by Mr.. Conrad. The value of it
was fixed ut from $40 to 500.
THOUGHT IT MALICIOUS.
Mr.. Spencer alleged that the defend
ant killed the dog maliciuusly. and
introduced evidence to prove that 1t
was not the first one he had killed. in
tending to show that he had IL wanton
and reckless disposition to use his gun
upon the dogs of the neighborhood If it
suited his fancy to kill any of them that
crossed his path.
N,. ,lAfanSA
had killed Mr. Spencer's dog accident.
ally. He said he owned "a field of rye
which was Il rendezvous of all the
spaiIOWS of Dunmore, ana to rld the
place Of them, he was wont to go out
with his shot gun and fire at them. This
day he fired at a flock Of birds on the
fence and killed the dog, which hap
pened to be rambling within range Of
the gun just at that time.
The plaintiff undertook to show that
Mr.. Conrad did not do it accidentally
by putting two witnesses on the stand,
carpenters who We're working near Mr.
Conrad's field of rye that day. Both
men said they say the defendant and
the dog, and from their stories the
jury might infer that Mr.. Conrad could
see the dog because they could see him
and it in the same sweep of vision. More
over Mr.. Conrad had not gone to see
Mr.. Spencer either 10 explain or apol-
OgiZe.
NEWCOMB WAS ELOQUENT.
In arguing to the Jury Mr. Newcomb
was very eloquent in defense of dogs.
Outside of the value that u man places
on a dog because he wants 1T for hunt
ing purposes there is ain attachment
almost an endearment between the
creature and master which is hard to
measure i'm dollars and cents. Next to
tha horse aid Nawpnnh the dog
comes in the scale Of usefulness to
man and he added "the more l see of
men the more 1 admire dogs"
Judge Edwards in charging the jury
told them not to let the subject over
which the suit was brought have any
prejudice one way or another. The laws
of this state make a dog as much a
mans property as a horse or a COW. If
they believed that Mr.. Conrad killed
the dog wilfully then he ought to pay
damages, and the amount was to be
fixed as near what fair and sensible
value of the dog was. The jury retired
at 3 o'clock and at 4.30 brought I'm
verdict in favor of Mr.. Spencer for S37.
The next case called was one in which,
strange to say, the city of Scranton
was plaintiff. Phoebe and Samuel
PENDANTS. City Solicitor Torrey and
Attorney c. August Battenberg repre-
sented the city and Attorneys !. III.
Burns and Charles T.. Oliver, the de-
PENDANTS. The suit was to collect a
sewer assessment, but after it was
started it developed that the lien
against the property had run out before
the beginning of the suit and n verdict
was directed by Judge Edwards in
favor of the defendant.
ACTION IN ASSUMPSIT.
Next the assumpsit suit of the B. N.
Mccoy Glass company against the
Iackawanna Hardware company, Of
this city, was called for trial. Attor-
ney Charles II. Welles represents the
plaiutiff and Attorneys w. A. Wilcox
and r. II. Patterson represent the de-
fendant jury was selected and the
Gaze will go on this Jnorning.
The Hardware company made q con-
tract with the Glass company for two
car loads of glass with the privilege OF
five and when one car load was received
the price of glass went up ~ per cent.
and the defendant didn't take any more
of IL