The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-01-29
JONES TRGsPAss SUIT
Negligence Of the Delaware and
Hudson Company Alleged.
TESTIMONY HEARD YESTERDAY
Plaintiffs Case VIII Close Todny-Suit
of Julia Walsh Against the City
Of Scranton Went to tho
Jury ut Adjournment.

tant matter was the trespass suit Of
David G. Jones against the Delaware
and Hudson Railroad company. The
plaintiff was put on the witness stand
when court convened and he was testi-
flying the most of the morning.
Ex-Judge Jessup subjected MIN to a
rigorous cross-examination about dis
tances. The plaintiff is an old man and
his faculties are somewhat impaired by
age and the accident he sustained.
Jones thought 1t was fifty feet from the
court house to Adams avenue and he
said the width of the court room was
fifty feet.
DIR. Comegys was called and swore as
to the condition of the plaintiff after the
accident. George r. Mathews and en-
Sheriff John J. Fahey testified with re-
gard to the crossing at Carbon street.
They are of the opinion that it is dam
gerous under even ordinary circum-
stances
Reese Phillips, inside foreman at the
Oxford shaft. was the next witness.
He was called to inform the jury about
the manner in which miners are re-
quired to work, and he gave an intelii-
gent and clear idea of it. Mr.. Phillips
was familiar with the chamber where
Mr.. Jones worked before the accident,
and the injuries sustained by the plain
tiff are, in his opinion. sucn as to dis
able him from following his regular
occupation any longer.
An Ex.Mine Inspector.
w. s. Jones. ex-mne inspector. passed
over the Carbon street crossing very
frequently and In Lls opinion it is a
very dangerous one. William j. Morris.
member of the miners examining
board, has known the plaintiff fifteen
years. The injuries Jones has received
are sufficient to prevent him from work.
ing as a miner. Mrs. David Richards,
sister of the plaintiff. testified as to the
pain suffered by the plaintiff.
The trespass suit of Julia Walsh
against the city of Scranton went to
the jury at adjournment, and in less
than fifteen minutes verdict was
agreed upon, which will be handed into
court this morning. The city defended
OH the ground that the storms of 1892
were extraordinary and but for the
sewer was built the damage would have
been greater.
The suit of William Holton against
w. F.Will was called in the main court
| room. Attorney Frank 4. Okell repre-
| sents the plaintiff and Attorney j. FL
liot the defendant. A jury was sworn
| and the evidence will be heard today
The suit is to recover SIS. 70 for wages
In court room No. the suit of John
McGinty against =. =. Jordan was
tried and a verdict of cents and all
h.. ,,t, To-, l.
plaintiff under instructions from the
court. Attorneys John p. Kelly and
Joseph O'Brien represented Mr.. Nc
Ginty and Attorney 4. v. Powderly
the defendant.
McGinty Purchased Property.
Ten or twelve years ago Messrs. Jor-
dan and McGinty purchased a building
in Olyphant and each had an undivided
On-half interest. They were tenants in
| common. McGinty set up business
place an dpaid Jordan $40 for his share
of the rent. At the end of the five-year
lease Jordan wanted more rent and
| McGinty agreed to pay s. month
more, but he grew tired OF the new bar
gain and would pay only $50. the agree
ment under the lease. although the
lease was not in operation; 1t had not
been renewed, but McGinty was paying
along each month.
When he refused to pay the increase.
Jordan took out a landlords warrant
! and sold him out. McGinty replevined
the goods. The case was decided on an
interesting point Of law. Jordan had
no right to seize the property Of Nc
Ginty after the lease expired, for then
McGinty was a tenant in common with
him.
In the case of Mary Johnson against
Attorney E. Fl. Shurtleff, administra-
tor. verdict Of $674.53 was rendered.
The case Of A. b. Mum against Eliza
beth Griffin was next called in No. 3.