The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-11-17

street retaining wall and the answers
| he thought cvasiVe. lie continued to
| press the question until Judge Ed
wards said:
why do you misunderstood the an
swers of the witness. Mr.. Burns. The
witness has given you g. comparative
estimate of what he thinks the damage
to the property was
"The witness has not answered my
| question:" replied Mr.. Burns. "lt is a
! proper one and think | ought to have
an answer to it. l don't think the
| court ought to try both sides OF this
| case"
"Mr. Burns" exclaimed Judge Ed
! wards with considerable warmth,
your remark is highly improper and
should never have been made. This
| court is not in the habit of trying
cases and you know it,
This reproof was ignored by Mr..
| Burns who proceeded with the cross
examination of the witness. Prior to
! his last remark about the court he
| was for some time visibly 'displeased
| over the admission of certain testi-
mony favorable to the city by Judge
! Edwards and he once or twice told
| him that the court had no right to al
! low the jury to hear such testimony.
MIR. BURNS APOLOGIzED.
Just before court adjourned Mr..
! Burns stepped before the bench and
! apologized TO Judge Edwards for the
remark he made concerning the court
The Hannick case against the city
was the first case called after court
opened in the morning and the trial
~ 81 t;,s.. IL, NI1-
Hannick was represented by Attorneys
l. IL. Burns and G. Comegys and City
Solicitor Mckinley appeared for the
city.
Mrs. Hannict owns a property on
the easterly side of Ninth street, be-
tween Lackawanna avenue and Scran-
ton street, and almost opposite where
Robinson street loses it's identity
in Ninth street. Several years ago
the city made some extensive improve
ments on Robinson street. A retaining
wall was erected along Ninth, which
gave a wider roadway to Robinson
and the latter thoroughfare was also
paved.
Mrs. Hannick alleges that the con-
struction of this wall directly in front
of her property injured it by narrow
ing the property less desirable. The
wall in front of the Hannick property
! is about three feet high and is sur
mounted by an iron railing. ON the
part of the city it was contended that
the improvements made at the inter-
section of Robinson and Ninth streets
had u tendency to enhance the value
of the Hannick property rather than
dcpreciate it.
One witness for the plaintiff testified
that the property was damaged to the
extent OF s3,OO0 The lowest amount
fixed was $500. The total value of the
property, according to the plaintiff's s
witness, is $4,000. Witnesses for the
city testified that the value of the
property was increased by the inn
provements at Robinson street.
NON-SUIT REFUSED.
After the plaintiffs rested yesterday
morning in the case of the Boyers
against L. Meredith and w. Gibson
Jones. the attorneys for the defendants
asked for a non suit on the ground
that the plaintiffs had not made out a
case Judge Mcpherson refused the
motion and the testimony for the de-
fense was then heard. 1t was to the
effect that the typhoid from which
the members of the Boyer family suf-
fered and died was due not to the un-
sanitary conditions of the premises
where they lived but the unclean man.
ner in which they kept the house. Mrs
Crosley and Mrs. Harlan, neighbors of
the Boyers, when they lived at Madi-
son avenue and Moir court. and Mrs
w. B. Duggan testified to the unclean
condition of the Boyer apartments
when they visited them.
j. II. Fisher, who has made a study
Of the rock formation of this part OF
the state, testified that it would be
impossible for matter from a cess poo
to percolate through the intervening
seventeen feet of earth and rock tC
the cellar. 1t was his opinion that
an overflow from the cess pool could
not reach the house.
Dr. j. c. Bateson testified that ii
his opinion germs from the cess poo
were not the cause of the sickness il
! the Boyer household. Only one more
witness is to be called. After DR.. Bate.
son left the stand the attorneys spent
the time until the adjOurning hour il
arguing law matter in connection with
, the case to the court.
n dispute over the tltle 10 bar anC
fixtures that was used in the restaur,
2 ant of Henry German, on Penn ave
nue., occupied the attention OF judge
Archibald and a jury in court room
No. 2 for the greater part of yester
: day. In 1885 Henry German desiring L
= embark i'm the restaurant business wen
, to Philadelphia and hade arrangement
= with Lewis g. Brother, manufacturers
S Of bar fixtures, etc.
Germans landlard was c. II. Miller
and when after IA time German be
$ came financially involved and his prop
Q crty was sold by the sheriff, Mile
8 purchased the bar and fixtures from
the sheriffs vendee.
= Lewis q Brother allege that the sal
e of the bar and fixtures was Illegal TO
! the reason that the title to these ar
+ ticles never passed from them. The,
\ contend that German only leased tn
fixtures and the defense is that tn
t lease was not executed until after Ger
4 man became endebted to Miller an
n others. EX-Judge Willard and ex
e Judge Knapp appeared for Mr.. Mile
and Attorneys Arthur Dunn AM
George Okell for the plaintiffs. Tn
case was given to the jury at O'Clock