The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-11-26
VERDICT IN FAVOR
OF A. BOCIANSkY
Allowed $3.50 Damages for the Death
of His Son Who Was Killed by
a Trolley Car.

IN the $lO.OOO damage suit of a. Boci-
ansky against the Scranton Railway
| company. the jury on Saturday brought
IN verdict for the plaintiff in the sum
of $50.
Mr. Bociansky brought suit because
or the killing of his four year-old boy
pE a trolley car on Washington ave-
nnc, between Gibson and New streets
lhe little Bociansky lad and the child
OF ncighbor Joe Zanieda. were
coasting down the hill in n small eX-
press wagon, when the wheels cnco,ln-
tered an obstruction. swerved the
wagon towards the track. overturned it
ana threw the occupants in front of a
car descending the hill.
The plaintiff claimed that had the
motorman been diligently attending to
his business he could have seen the
children being borne towards the track
and been able to stop the car in time
To prevent the accident.
The defense was that the motorman
was attending to his business and that
it all happened so suddenly he could
not possibly avert the accident. The
jury went out at noon Friday and did
not reach an agreement until late Fri
day night. Nosburg l. Dawson repro
sented the plaintiff. The company's at
torneys We're Major Everett Warren
and Hon. G. p. O'Malley, of Willard,
Warren & Knapp.
No agreement could be reached in
the case of the Exeter Machine COM
pany against the Pine Slill Coal COM
pany. which was on trial before Judge
Archibald during the last three days Of
the week. The jury retired at noon
Friday and were discharged at noon
Saturday.
The suit was to recover 800 for Il
Parsons shaking screen built by the
plaintiff tor the defendant. 1t did not
work satisfactorily and was taken out
of the breaker. laid alongside the rail-
road track and notice sent the manu-
fncturers that it awaited their disposal.
1t is there yet
The machine company claims that it
was not responsible for the opera tion
of the screen. as it was built after de-
signs of Il third party by order of the
defendant company. AS there was
nothing defective in the material or
construction, the machine company
maintains it can not be held liable for
the failure of the machine to do rs
work. 1t was also alleged that the de-
fendant company did not give the ma
chine n perfect trial. as it did not sat
it properly.
The law point on which the case
mainly hinged was whether or not the
screen was standard article of manu-
facturc. If it was, the plaintiff COM
pany in agreeing to manufacture it
gave with it an implied guarantee.
The third and final week OF the No
Nember term of common pleas begins
today. Among the important cases
down for trial are \. Frothingham
against Charles II. Welles, ejectment;
the Northern Coal and Iron company
against the Scranton Gas and Water
company. trespass; Fenner & Chappell
against Il. r.. Grihiths and others, at
tachment execution; Bessie Judge
against Carter e. Co., trespass: II. j.
smith against Mabel Smith, divorce:
Thomas w. Davis and others against
Susan Spencer and others, and the
four suits against the Scranton Rail-
way company, in which the plaintiffs
are Mary Calpin. Michael Stafford,
Mary McGinness and George Casino.
Judge Edwards will sit in the main
court room and Judge Kelly in No. 2.