The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-09-23

The famous case of John G.
Jennings against the Lehigh Valley
Railroad company is again before the
court 1t was on trial yesterday In
the superior court room before Judge
ID. w. Searle, of Montrose, who was
called here to specially preside dur
ing the trial of this case. Attorney
James Mahon represents Jennings and
Cornelius Smith also sits at the plain
tiff's table and coaches Mahon with
reference to the case. Major Everett
Warren and Attorney l. II. Burns ap-
pear for the company.
In the case now on trial the father
is sueing to recover damages for in
juries sustained by his son, James Jen-
nings in the collision at Mud Run on
Oct. 10, 1885, The fathers claim is for
loss of his sons services and money
expended for medical attendance and
medicine. From this and the James
Jennings case sprang the long line of
sensations that have disturbed the
Lackawanna county and supreme
courts for years.
When the case was called yesterday
morning Judge Searle had not yet ar
rived and the work of drawing a jury
proceeded before Judge Edwards. The
jurors were drawn from the box by
j. NJ. Walker, clerk in court room No.
2 While he was thus engaged Mr..
Smith arose as If to address the court
and was told by the Judge to be seat
ed that the only business the court
would attend to then was the drawing
of jury. Mr.. Smith did not again
during the day endeavor to be heard.
HEARING TESTIMONY.
AT 10 o'clock Judge Searle arrived
and the trial of the case was taken up.
After a brief opening by Attorney
Mahon, James Jennings was called to
the stand and told the nature of the
injuries he sutained in the memorable
collision at Mud Run.
His father, John G.. Jennings, the
plaintiff, was next called and said that
the accident to his son had been a
damage to him that it would take
$4,000 to repay After he left the stand
the remainder of the day was spent in
listening to the reading of the testi-
mony of DR.. G. w. Kelly, taken at a
former trial. He is the physician who
treated young Jennings after the acci-
dent
This is the third time the case has
been before jury. On the first trial
the jury disagreed and on the second.
after the jury had been sworn, one of
the Jurors said he was prejudiced with
reference to the case and he was with
drawn and the case continued. On
either occasion when the case was
ready for trial Mr.. Smith sprung some
OF his numerous sensations and the
case consequently hal to go over.
Before Judge Edwards the entire day
was taken up listening to testimony
in the eiectment suit of John Flack
against Bridget Kenney and Mary
Kenney. A lot on West Market street,
this city, is the matter in dispute.
The plaintiff is represented by Attor-
neys George d. Taylor and E. c. New
comb and the defendants by Attorneys
John p. Kelly and John F. Scragg. All
of the evidence was heard yesterday
and today arguments to the jury will
be made.
WINTON EJECTMENT CASE.
Before Judge Archibald. in court room
No. 2, the ejectment suit of Edward
Gumaer against Pardon II. Barber was
on trial. Watson & Zimmerman ap-
pear for the plaintiff and Attorney c.
H. Soper for the defendant. Fifty
acres of land in Winton township is
the matter in dispute. The plaintiff
claims title to the land became vested
in him by purchase at sale conducted
by the executor of the estate of the
previous owner. The defendant alleges
that the title is in him as one of the
heirs of the prior owner and holds that
the executor had no right to make a
sale and that the title was merely held
in trust for himself and brother and
could not be parted with by the ex-
ecutor:
When court adjourned testimony for
the defense was being heard.