The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-12-17

case before a jury of three. l don't
see any reason for trying the matter
over again. The case was fairly and
thoroughly tried. The charge of the
learned court was without error. Mr.
Ncwcomb thought so well of 1t that
he withdrew his yard-long string of ex-
cCptions to it and then 7 thought so
well of 1t ! withdrew mine. l don't
know how this jury Of three will view
the case, but ! know that you Will
rever find a jury Of twelve i'm Lacka-
wanna county mean enough to give a
verdict for the defendant. The verdict
for us was justified | only wish to
the Lord it was three times as much"
Mr.. Soper was the soul and embodi-
ment of earnestness all through his
argument. He never smiled or indi-
Gated i'm any way that he knew he was
saying funny things-if indeed he did
know
In the case of ]. ]. Marshall against
Simon Rice, the application for a new
trial, made by Mr.. NcwCOmb was
based mainly upon an alleged error of
the trial judge in not allowing him
to comment on a feature of Marshall's
deed. The deed was secured from f..
Morris and unlike its predecessors was
a quit claim deed. This Mr. Newcomb
wanted to show to the jury was evil
dence that Morris. the former owner,
recognized Rice's claim to the disputed
strip at the end of the lot, over which
the aleyway extended. Mr.. Price, at
torney for the plaintiff, repeated the
contention on which the trial Judge
forbade the comment. that the con-
Of a ig hp
for the jury.
EX-Judge stanton appeared in sup
port of motion to set aside the YER
dict of $500 in the breach of promise
case of Mary Marvel against George
Phillips. The plaintiff being a minor
brought the suit by her next friend,
her uncle. Before the case came to
trial the girl. with some friends. came
to Judge Stanton's Office and agreed to
the filing of a discOntinuance. Judge
stanton would not take part in the
trial, claiming that judgment in the
same case could not go on record.
MIR. MURPHY'S CONTENTION.
j. j. Murphy. attorney for the plain
tiff. held that the girl could not dis
continue the case. as she did not bring
tinued by the next friend with con-
sent Of the girl.
The case went to the jury. a $500
verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
Judge Stanton thereupOn secured a
rule to show cause why the verdict
should not be st aside.
The story of the case is that Phil
lips engaged to marry the girl, and
after they had been called out in
church and had gone even so far as
to get out a marriage license, he cast
her aside and married another girl.
The defense is that the marriage con-
tract was, in fact, made with the uncle
that Phillips was coerced into it, and
that at the last moment he decided
not to marry a girl he did not care
fol.
In the case of w. A. Mcdowell
against William +. joyce the rule for
new trial applied for by the defend
ants was discharged. the defense Of
Iering no opposition.
The exceptions to the report of view
crS in the case of =. \. Walker against
the city of CarbOndale We're dismissed.
Other cases argued were: II. j. Col
Inns VS.. j. ID. HaCkett, rule for bill of
costs; Harrison Brothers against j. d.
Williams & Brothers, exceptions to re-
port of referee; T.. May Cokeley and
Anna Jurisch against the Sterling Cy-
Gle works, rule for new trial.
The Law and Wall divorce cases
We're handed up. and in the divorce
case of David Il. Hand against j. NJ.
Hand, Attorney j. w. Walker argued
| for counsel fees and alimOny, w. w.
LathrOpe, opposing.