The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-11-17

lshHC La bht's Sutt tot s'OSp""S
on n Culm Dump Comes Up Again.
Carbondaie Young Woman Sues
Rarid Transit Company for the
Loss of Her Foot.
In the case Of Mary Reagan and her
husband John Reagan, against the
Scranton Traction company, the jury
yesterday brought in a verdict for the
plaintifrs in the sum of $4,000. Two
thirds of this amount is for the injuries
which Mrs. Reagan sustained and the
other third for the loss of her services,
for which the husband sued
The case of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas
Zurich against the Delaware, Lacka-
wanna and Western company was nom
suited by Judge Edwards yesterday af-
ternoon. Major Warren moved for the
non-suit on the grounds that the par
ents were guilty of contributory neg
lgence and that no negligence had
been shown on the part of the COM
pany. The father, according to his
own testimony, Major Warren said,
saw his little daughter playing in the
pasture lot across the railroad track
and knew that she would have to re-
cross the track. to get home. Despite
his knowledge of the fact that the lit
tie one would be exposed to a danger
with which she was not able to cope,
he went into the house and paid no
more heed to her
Mr.. Nosburg and ex-Judge Stanton
for the plaintiffs, endeavored to re-
flute these contentious by arguing that
the little child was playing with some
older children with whom she was ac-
customed to play, and who the par
ents had every reason to believe were
capable of caring for her As to the
negligence of the company they point
ed out the evidence adduCed during
the morning to the effect that the
brakeman in charge of the trip of cars
which ran over the child, was not
properly attending to his duties, but in
stead was flirting with girls who stood
in the doorway of a house alongside
the track.
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE.
After allowing the motion for a nom
suit Judge Edwards granted a rule
to show cause why the non-suit should
not be stricken off, returnable at argu-
ment court.
The trespass case of Isaac +. La
Bar against the Greenwood Coal COM
pany was called for trial before Judge
Edwards just previous to adjourn
ment. S. b. Price appears for the
plaintiff and Major Everett Warren
for the defendant. T. II. Dale and
George r. Brooks personally represent
ed the defendant company.
The Slit iS ONar a pI1lr1 nile When
culm dumps first commenced to be re-
garded as being of commercial value
Mr.. La Bar purchased the large one
located at Greenwood on the lands
| now leased by the Greenwood Coal
| company.
When the company built its new
breaker and started mining from the
! tract it helped itself to several thous-
and tons of the culm from La Bars
| dump part of it being used as fuel
for the boilers and part for filling and
ballasting. The company admits hav-
| ing taken about 5000 tons, but alleges
that since mining operations were got
ten under way this has been returned
with interest. Mr.. La Bar claims that
much more than this amount was taxi
| en- and asks $1,000 damages.
| The case was tried four years ago
and a verdict Of $4,000 found for the
| plaintiff. Judge Gunster granted a new
| trial on the ground that the verdict
was against the weight of the evidence.
| Efforts have been made to settle the
case, but as yet no agreement has been
arrived at.
Miss Lizzie Gilmartin, of Carbondale,
| appeared as plaintiff in a suit before
= do
against the Lackawanna Valley Rap
! id Transit company for the loss of her
! foot and other injuries resulting from
her being run down by one of the COM
pany's cars on the night Of June IL,
| 1895.
Miss Gilmartin and her sister, EN-
| ma, were returning to their home in
the southern end of the city on the
| night in question, after having attend
ed a wake up town. The car tracks on
| Brooklyn street, where the accident
| happened, are laid on the right hand
side of the road, too close to the fence
line to leave space for a oot-path.
USED AS A FOOT-PATH.
The two girls. as is the common GUS
| tom there, We're making use of the
| track as a foot-path, when a car came
| along at a high rate of speed, and
without any warning, rushed down
| upon them. Emma, who was in the
! lead, had stepped outside the rail to
avoid bad spot in the track, and the
| car barely missed her. Lizzie was
| struck squarely by the front of the
car and run over. Her left foot was
crushed so badly that it had to be
amputated, her thigh was badly lac
Grated and she also sustained several
| other injuries of lesser severity.
| They allege that they were constant
! ly on the lookout for the approach of
| car from behind as the north-bound
car had gone up only a few minutes
! before, and they knew H. would pass a
south-bound car at the switch, a few
| hundred yards above. Had there been
| a headlight on the car, which they
| claim was not the case, they would
| have been able to see it's approach,
and the motorman, too, would have
been able to see them, they allege.
The defense will be that the plaintiff
was guilty of contributOry negligence
| in walking on the track, with the con-
fessed knowledge that a car was ap-
preaching, and liable to come down on
| them at any moment.
James j. O'Neil and O'Brien e. Kel-
| ly appear for the plaintiff, and Horace
f. Hand and w. S. Diehl, of Watson,
Diehl, Hall & Kemmerer, for the de-
| fandapt