The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-01-14
In the Superior Court.

In the Superior Court.
At IL o'clock, yesterday morning, the
superior court began its first session
of the year in the superior court room
There We're present on the bench Presi.
dent Judge G. Il. Rice. Judge George
B. Orlady, Judge Peter r. Smith, Judge
William y. Porter and Judge William
| w. Porter Judge James a. Beaver
was not present at the opening oil
Judge John T. Mitchell still continues
too i'll to attend.
There was large attendance of law.
| yerS present from the counties whose
appeals are scheduled for this week
Among them were c. \. Small. Lewis
G.. Menach c. J. Fisher, Hon. Fred
| Tlieler. Il. Il. John. T. II. B. Lyon. OF
Columbia; r. l.. Burnett. A. Il. Brit
tain. Henry J. Kotz, II. r. McCready
y. NJ. Palmer. Staples. Erdman A. Lee
of Monroe: James w. Pratt, G. q. Der
sheimer, James E. Frcar of Wyoming
Hon. w. II. Hines J. G. Creveling, A
l.. Williams Hon. Henry VI. Palmer,
Thomas f. Farrell, s. L. Fedder, NJ. j.
Mulhall, Edmund G. Butler, A. r.
Brundage, John NJ. German. G. j.
Clark, S. j. Strauss. Joseph II. Jones,
.Abner Smith. Abram Salsberg, John
II. Williams, Miss Faith a. Bulnrd.
Arthur Hillman. John McCiahren and
d. ]. O'Neill, of Luzerne.
Miss Bullard was one of the attor-
neys admitted TO practice yesterday.
Others admitted We're:
Joseph II. Jones. X. L. Burnett. Sam
uel l.. Fedder, Arthur Hillman. Abram
Salsberg. John Menovsky. John II.
Williams, Thomas r. Farrell. of I.u-
Zerne A. NJ. Palmer, A. Il. Britain,
of Monroe: Ralph r. John, Charles
j. Fisher, of Columbia: Ezra II. Con-
nell. James r. Watkins and George l..
Peck. of Lackawanna.
At the calling of the list for the first
week cases We're disposed OF as follows:
Continued
Harry C. Mason against James Quinn. ct al,
appellants; cclGnon pleas. Luzrrne county.
u. j. Conlan against Mary Conan, appellant;
common pleas. Luzcuc county.
ZccInan Bros. against David Salsbr:g, ct al.
appellants; rplrmpn pleas luzciEc county.
Scltrl-N
Waiter PENNINGTON against B. NJ. Pace, appel.
liant; common pleas. Luzcrnc county
Dennis Breslin. guardian of James
Noonan. against the Kingston Coal
company. appellant Hon. Henry NJ.
Palmer and a. l.. Williams appeared
for the appellant, and D. l.. and j. @.
Crevelng for the appellee.
Appeal is made from the finding of
the Lu2erne common pleas court OF q
verdict of $500 damages for injuries
sustained by NOonan. Il 14-year old boy,
employed by the defendant coal COM
pany
The boy was engaged at the screens
to keep the coal from clogging on the
"knuckle," on which the coal passed
after being screened. He was supposed
tn stand on bridge and with the aid
of long handled scraper start The coal
in motion when il became clogged. In
stead OF doing this. however, he was
won't TO discard the SCraper, climb
down beneath the screen and taking an
easy position on the "knucklc," or in
clinCd chute, use his feet to start up
the coal when it became clogged. No
vembcr 3. 1897, while thus engaged, he
was caught by the screen and dragged
through an eight-inch opening between
the screen ana the chute, sustaining
serious injuries.
The plaintiff claimed damages on the
ground that the company did not in
struct him as to the manner in which
the work should be performed and
failed to warn him of the danger. He
claimed nj the tria! that he had seen
the foreman go down into the hopper 10
loosen coal win his feet when there
was 4 clog at the "knucSlc," and that
he Was never TOLD not Ia do IL. The
company presented testimony that it
had eXplicilly told him not To so into
the hopper.
ON the day of the accident. the boy
further stated, he boie II scraper and
went to get Il new one. The hosS told
him he WAS breaking altogether 100
many Scrnpers ana that he should get
back To work and keep the coal going
on he would be kicked" home. lie
Went back without the scraper and,
fearing To be discharged, went down
into the hopper ana used his feet 10
loosen the coal this being The only
means, 10 his mind. available.
The attorneys for the appellant argued
that the court below should have grant
ed n non-suit on the ground that having
young Nuonun 10 be man. as
far as responsibilities went, il should
have held that The place he entered was
one Of extreme danger, and in entering
It aEd mrcting with accident. he was
guilty of Conllibutory negligence.
The appclec's argument WAS that us
there was dispute as 10 whether or
not the boy WAS warned Of the danger
of going into the hopper. and II beng
ln1isDui ed thuT the work W.Is new Ia