The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-06-04
CITY FIGURED In
FOUR CIVIL CASES
Swetland Street Property Holders Is.
cape Gutter Assessments.
KINGSTON MAN SEEKING DAMAGES
emily Injured by Tripping on an
Uneven Sidewalk in Front of the
Conway House in ish
Between Attorneys in the Bonita
Cases--Constabies Fee Bill De-
cision Appealed.

-Four city cases and the Pritchard
case occupied the time of common pleas
yesterday. The former were tried be-
fore Judge Edwards. In the first case
the city was plaintiff and two Swetland
street property holders, John Frank
and August Seamans, were defendants.
The city sought to enforce collection
on municipal liens direc&ed against
the defendants properties for gutter
ing done by city ordinance. Ex-
Judge Stanton tried for non-suit on
the grounds that the lien was defective
as 1t had been issued from the court
of an alderman who he claimed had
no jurisdiction, and again because there
is no act Of assembly permitting a city
to provide for cutters by ordinance.
Being overruled in these points of law,
he made the contention that the work
has not been done in accordance with
the specification and the jury after be-
ing out short time returned verdict
for the defendant.
The second case was one wherein the
city was defendant and Christopher
Smith, of Kingston, for himself and
also as executor of the estate of his
wife, Amelia Smith, was plaintiff. In
1891 Mrs. Smith came UP from Duryea
where the family then lived to do some
shopping. Going along Penn avenue,
in front of the Conway house, which
was then in course of erection, she
stumbled. it is alleged, on an uneven
plank walk and sustained injuries to
her side and shoulder which made her
virtually helpless and caused her in
tense pain and suffering until the time
of her death three years later. Dam
ages in the sum of $1,000 are asked by
the estate for her personal injuries
and like amount Is demanded by the
husband for the loss of his wife's SER
vices. f. G. Newcomb and d. j. Reedy
appear for Mr.. Smith, City Solicitor
Torrey and Assistant City Solicitor d.
]. Davis are caring for the defense.
BARTHOLD-PRITC CASE
The case of Edwards and Barthold
against Mrs. Martha Pritchard was
given to the jury at $50 o'clock yes
terday afternoon after being on trial
the best part of two days. To dis
credit the testimony of the experts who
gave it as their opinion that the with
interest" clause was added to the note
three or four months after the sigma
ture was attached, the attorneys for
the plaintiff, Hulslander & Alworth,
presented documents from the record
er's office showing that the note, bear
| ing the words with interest" was re-
corded in November, 1889, not a full
month after it was signed and deliv-
cred.
Judge Gunster called another of the
| Bonita cases just after the above case
| went to the jury and directed that a
| jury be empanneled in it despite the
protests of ex-Judge Stanton and City
| Solicitor Torrey of counsel for the de-
| fense, who claimed that Mr.. Hibbs was
the Bonita company's attorney and that
1t was an injustice to try the case un-
| til he could reach here. Mr.. Torrey
said he simply represented himself and
| appeared rather as an officer OF the
| company than it's attorney.
Judge Stanton disavowed being the
| Bonita company's representative, say
ing he was merely appearing for him
| self to protect an interest which he
| had in the Bonita patents. Mr.. Torrey
| pointed out that 1t would again be un-
| fair and unjust to allow the case to
| go to trial with Judge Stanton as the
| only attorney for the Defense for the
reason that Judge Stanton's interests
| and those of the Bonita company are
likely to be opposed some time or an
| other.
OPPOSED A CONTINUANCE.
Mr.. Comegys, attorney for the plain
| tiffs, insisted on going to trial imme-
diately saying that Mr.. Hibbs had been
duly notified of the time for which the
trial was set and he and not the oppo-
sition should be made to suffer for his
| failure to be present. Judge Gunster
| ordered the case to proceed, saying
that jury could be drawn at least be-
| fore adjournment, and in the morning
| all hands could be present.
The defendants attorneys also want
| ed to have the cases held over until a
| final disposition be made of the Kinds
case to which all the others are paral-
lei in every respect Mr.. Comegys was
willing to accede to this if the defend
| ants would enter into a written agree
ment to accept the final finding in the
Kinds case as the verdict in all, but
this they refused to do.