The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-01-05

CORNELIUS SMITH.
before the late Judge John T.. Connolly.
Jennings son was in the Mud Run dis
astar and received, it was claimed,
permanent injuries for which compen-
sation was asked. The company al
legged that the Jennings boy had not
been injured but was suffering from
malforIuaton of the breast After lis
tening to conflicting expert and other
testimony for several days the jury
brought in a verdict for $4,000, which
Judge Connolly Immediately set aside
as being unreasonable and eXhorbitant.
Then it was the sensational features
of the case began. Cornelius Smith,
the attorney for Jennings, in moving
for q new trial charged Judge Connolly
who had died in the meantime, with
having entered into an agreement with
|. II. Burns by which the verdict afore-
said was to be set aside. He was repri-
manded severely in open court for TINS
attack but subsequently he repealed 1t
in various forms on different occa-
sions among others in petition to the
supreme court in the year 1895 when
he charged: THAT there and then Ira
II. Burns, solicitor, had procured from
the Honorable Judge Connolly an
agreement to set aside any verdict
which the jury should render in favor
of the plaintiff" For this attack, Mr..
Burns in libel proceedings, secured
verdict for $4,000.
WHOLESALE ACCUSATIONS.
Mr. Smith also made a wholesale at
tack on everybody connected with the
case by bringing proceedings in his eli
ent's name against the Lehigh Valley
| company. Judge r. w. Archibald, Major
| Everett Warren and Ira II. Burns, the
| attorneys for the company; E. n. Will
| lard, who was Mr.. Wawen's law part
| ner; Hon. Lemuel Amerman, who act
| ed as the sheritfs attorney; Prothono-
tary Clarence E. Pryor; Deputy Pro-
thonotary Myron Kasson and Detec-
tive Thomas +. Reynolds
In the declaration in this case, Mr.
| Smith declared that the defendants
well knowing the premises but continu-
ing and intending to injure the plain
| tiff, conspired to defeat the action
| aforesaid, and in pursuance of said
| combination and conspiracy the defend
ants fabricated and procured false and
fraudulent testimony against the plain
| tiff and procured the verdict in favor of
| the plaintiff to be set aside"
The case was called and annuonce-
ment made that it would be tried be-
fore Judge Mcpherson, of Dauphn
county. Mr.. Smith made motion for
a change of venue, but his was denied.
| He then refused to proceed with the
| prosecution of the case and a non-suit
was accordingly entered.
1t was the libel suit instituted by Mr..
Burns that Immediately led up to the
disbarment proceedings. Mr.. Smith
filed an appeal from the award of the
arbtrators in the case, paying the pro-
| thonotary's fee with a check. When
the twenty days allowed for taking an
appeal had elapsed the point was
raised, that no legal appeal had been
taken as the fee had not been paid in
cash, as required by law. Mr. Smith
was notified that no valid appeal had
been taken, Whereupon he carried the
matter to argument court. There Were
two rules argued, one to strike off the
appeal and the other to set aside the
award of the arbtratOrs. Judges Gun.
ster and Edwards sat on the case.
| While waiting for a decision it ap.
pears Mr.. Smith was led to believe thai
Judge Gunster, on December SO, 1895
bod bor1od ,1o,,.,, On o,,irio,, so,,,,,,l,,,
ta hin, a,,d afta,,,,a,d, r,,aai,ad - -,
IVA sn,,,,ita+tn, ne A.. p,,,,,', A.,
c,,ith ,,,,astia,,a5 T,,arra ,,uns,tar 80, w..
,,,,ttar ar,d ,,,e,, ,es,7,,,,,1 tt,ot w. ,sl 80,
I,,',,,, ,,,i,,i,,f,,,,,,, No., s,'t i
T,,,,,,,,l,,,, ., ~ c., ,t -
- Ilt4a ,,,,-,4
,
LETTER TO THE JUDGE.
Hon e w cunstar
Dear Sir: / confess | was puzzled whe,