The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-11-26
in COMMON PLEAS COURT
Damage Suit Against the City Of
Carbondale Was Tried-Bitten-
bender Biesecker Jury Was
Out at Adjournment.

one Of the damage suits against the
city of Carbondale growing out of the
alleged nuisance which the Second dis.
trict sewer opening caused, was called
for trial before Judge Gunster yester-
day.
John Watcrfield who owns property
on Nicol alley through which the sew
er runs just before entering the river
is the plaintiff. His property Is stu
atcd one hundred ami twenty-five feet
from the river bank. Before the mouth
of the sewer was carried below the
town two years ago all the sewage of
the Second sewer district was emptied
into the river at that point
At times of low water the mouth of
the sewer ard the channel of the riN er
would sometimes be many feet apart
| and the sewage would in consequence
be deposited on the shingles of the
river bed When these conditions pre-
| vailed, and especially in warm weather.
very offensive odor arose, 1t Is nj
| legged and pcrmeated the entire neigh
borhood, making the houses there
abouts scarcely inhabitabe. Mr. Wat
erfleld claims that in addition to max
! ing it very unpleasant to live there
| abouts, the nauseating Cdors siCkened
| him and other members of the family.
For this he wants $4,000 damages.
The defense is that the unsdnitary
| condition Of premises of the people of
| that locality and the garbage that they
| themselves dumped ON the river bank
was responsible for the odors.
The city, it Is claimed, kept the
| trerch dug from the river channel to
| the sewer opening and that at all times
| the sewage was emptied directly into
! the water of the river. and never al
| lowed to flow over amy intervening
| ground as alleged ny the plaintiff.
The case was still on at adjournment
G. l.. Hawley and |. II. Burns represent
| the plaintiff, and Hon. John y. Rey-
nolds and Hon. John p. Kelly, the de-
! fcndant.
! In a former suit of a similar char
acter brought by Mrs. Nicol, next
door neighbor of the plaintiff in the
present case "a verdict for 500 against
the city was rendered. There are q
number of other suits of like nature
| pending.
The case of j. Il. and A. Hamilton
of Pittsburg. against f. G. Rarrick
was called for trial before Judge Ed
wards. Welles & Torrey were counse
for the plaintiffs and +. c. NewcOmt
represented the defendant The plain
tiff claimed $435 for several gross OF
beer bottles shipped by them to thu
defendant, at his request, in the sprini
of 1897.
The defendant admitted ordering
and receiving the bottles, but asserted
that they did not come up to the sam
pie furnished at the time the order
was given. He further claimed thai
the bottles were almost totally unf
for use, and that he had entered int,
an agreement for settlement of tn
account for $500 with an authorized
agent of the plaintiffs in pursuance o
which he had sent checks in paymen
which We're returned to him. Th
plaintiff denied the agreement a
claimed by the plaintiffs, asserting
that their agent had no authority t
make a compromise of the account.
In the Bittenbender- Biesecker cas-
the jury had not reached an agree
ment up to adjourning time.