Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1900-11-22
SpEtlNl SESSION
OE COURT


n 1Hmn iiu6 lt, mtt
nmh
fHHuh nHU HU. .N r
maN puf .Mm nH HUmH W
Fhuf H VI fHu mt Rn
m At N M tH. NuU
N#ea. NHHHa wH NaH AHHa
NNta huA Nh NNuft
WhtN qeW ,1H,fet4 ta fRr AHN
HtgA AwUh NtW RHA MHWW l NHNHa
NN, NeaRlyA 1Vsts,,s
N NRu W,st hat apA ys A#lF
N,W, n Np,kNys aN,gHys ta lty
a,}yW8aHt. wHly RN RnflbetteR tN hANv
tRr yav A ll,et a Ntan ssaissi
k.lWs Mss aapj 81 eyg $3.50 G,TW,,
sas al. saItNH Nes verevrl by Nler
Nrye t lE NeW pire~ ,t WH'aNspaFl,
RU3 tH.f.s thtllNnl reIVv.ynllRs lbe
plalHta Fayy wsrl thst ID thr ytsy d
p0l nNvy 1 be vlh ya,,, tg suhpuguae
lpe witnesses, vtc, a. hr lRtl hy by
defendant le5sv lS,lc uau,vl ,hr
oT3eg pptttpg tbr gRsc eyvy tbc term,
Nltb r,,,t> arstn,l tbr 3tJvDlaal
1at Uy>s cs>e ys'tvl NsS thai e Joseph
Gs'reD ou3 Nsgaryta ERuon, hi, wife,
ara,o>, ,br EyaJlue hon Company, The
plsiuutg> aEc represented hy vN-Julgv
llcury NJ lliucklry auj Charles >ijlcr,
E>.l.. vt >unbury lion. :. 4. wolvrr-
ton, Il >uubuJv. Jefferson SNYDER. E>g,,
of Reading. and James scarlet, E>q..
and Charles Chaliaut, E>q, represent
the company,
Tbi> action l. brought 20 recover SSO.
UlN for the death of the infant child Of
MIR and Mrs Barron. which was killed
from the Reading Iron works was blown
through the Barron house about four
year. ago. The next case on the court
list i that Of Mr. and Mrs Barron
against the Iron Company TO recover
S3O.0o0 for injuries which Mrs. Barron is
claimed TO have sustained at the same
time that her child was killed.
The jury drawn fgr this case consists
Of George +. Eeif>nyder, Peter }. keef-
er, Edward Mills, Leslie McClain, Josiah
Jobborn, Benjamin +. Foulk, Benjamin
Steiner, Charles Robbins. James Heck
endorn, Isaac r saul, J. II Leidy and
William IL Camp
Five witnesses were sworn before the
adjournment of court. They were Sup
erintendent Theodore r. Patterson,
Robert Reed, Lewis Morgan, Lewis Will
IaIn> aud t;Iraru AiDvvh, al of whom
were employed at the Iron Works on
the afternoon that the boiler exploded.
They were examined simply To show
the work that was being done at the
mill that afternoon.
1t was not until afternoon that evid-
ence of interest was introduced. Up TO
that time witnesses were placed on the
stand to simply tell of the work being
done on the afternoon of the explosion,
October S, 1896, and to describe the
events of the afternoon.
When the plaintiffs attorneys called
W. l.. Brown, of Philadelphia, TO the
stand, the large crowd of spectators in
the court room stirred expectantly. Mr..
Brown is the young iron testing engine
er appointed by order Of the court last
May to test pieces of the exploded boil
er to determine whether the explosion
was due to defects in the iron.
Much time was occupied by Mr.. Scar
let in his objections to the evidence of
this witness. Mr. Scarlet wished to show
that the witness made his tests only
across the grain of the iron, and that
such work proved him incompetent as an
expert, and made his evidence ineifectu
al in proving the point sought for. The
court permitted the examination of the
witness.
Mr. Brown testified that in test for
tensile strength, the piece of iron that
he took from the boiler broke under a
strain of y 900 pounds. Another piece,
subjected to cold bending test, showed
signs of fracture when bent thirty-two
degrees and broke entirely at forty-two
degrees. He testified that these tests
showed the iron of the boiler to be of
poor quality.
Mr.. Scarlet objected to all of this testi
mony, claiming that it was incompe
tent but Judge Little overruled the OBJ
| jectons.
No more expert testimony was in
troduced. Mr.. and Mrs. Barron were
both sworn, an interpreter being used
to take part of their evidence.
1t was decided Yesterday that none of
the other damage suits against the Read
ing Iron Company will be tried at this
| term of court and all of the jurors not
sitting in the case now on trial were dis
| charged.
The evidence for the plaintiffs was all
presented in the case of Barron against
the Iron company and motion for a
non suit was argued. Judge Little re-
served his decision on the non suit mo-
| ton until this morning.
The only evidence of Importance in
troduced yesterday was that of w. Bar
nett LeVan, boiler expert of Philadel
phia, who examined the boiler after the
explosion. He testified that he believed
the accident was due to defects in the
boiler, caused by its improper support.
While the attorneys were arguing the
motion for a non suit the jury was TAX
en- to the mill to examine the pieces of
the boiler and to see the Barron house,
through which part of the boiler was
! blown.
Mr.. Scarlet argued for non suit, con
tending that the expert testimony in
troduced by the plaintiffs was incompe-
tent Judge Hinckley made the oppos,
ing argument and Jefferson Snyder, Esq.
of Reading, replied to him.