The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-03-28

men and pretty much everybody else
about the court house, yesterday after
noon at 1855, rushed in mad haste 10
court room No. 3, to verify for them
selves what each at first thought could
be nothing more than u wild-eyed
rumor.
From time immemorial, jury which
went out on the last day of a week $
session of court failed, invariably 10
effect an agreement until after court
had adjourned for the day. Some eX-
plained this invariable occurrence by
ponting out that the jurors, feeling
that they were no longer needed on
other cases, took plenty of time to the
consideration of the case in hand, ana
the fact that the agreements quite as
invariably were reached a short time
after adjournment was attributed TO
chance and accident.
Some would explain the invariable
occurrence by pointing out that the
jurors, by remaining out until the judge
went home, could seal their verdict, re-
port it the next morning and get an
extra days pay for ten or fifteen min
utes' work. These latter eXplainers,
however, let it be said, found few TO
accept their theory.
But, be the cause what it may, a
jury, yesterday, broke the heretofore
invariable rule. 1t retired about :
O'Clock. after all the other jurors had
been discharged for the week, and when
retiring was told by Judge Wheaton
that he would have to leave at 4.15, and
that if it did not reach verdict before
that time it should report its verdict on
Saturday morning. This meant that the
jury need only stay out until a little
after Ais. and get two days extra pay
for coming around Saturday morning
and handing up their finding.
At $50 "a rap on the jury room door
awoke Tipstaff Boland, who was doing
in chair outside resting assured that
he would not be disturbed for at least
half an hour. When the foreman told
. him the jury had agreed and was ready
to report, the tipstaff looked at his
watch. then at the foreman and said,
WHAT" The tone of the what was
such that it can not be punctuated with
any degree of positiveness. Possibly an
explanation mark would be nearer cor
rect than one of Interrogation.
Mr.. Boland. when convinced that the
jury really wanted to throw away four
dollars head, went down and apprised
Judge Wheaton. and he came in to re-
ceive the verdict.
WORD oi what had happened spread
through the court mouse IKE an alarm
Oh lre' ana IN an instant every STAR
way was chokeo WIN lhe croWd thit
Tanted to see if the thing could be
really true and. if it was true what
manner of men had been guilty Of it
NS lhe Eeruict was peiilS takel' the
crowd looked ON III wonder, ana "hen
ne jurors iell tIle poN 10 ne Out INTO
'he corrloor ana dlsperse' the crowd
maze way lor theln ana loiioWed thelh
WIN intent gaze, as II they We're some
Sort OF beings dihereht from the ordl-
u'rs' Inc jurors WERE
John Simpson, merchant, Scranton.
J. Z. Parrish superintendent, Scranton
mnl'i' .. roster Ci'ii engineer scranton
- ,'"us w r. n,',rI u",t, ''n,",r""' s Tu,|or Mn'is
M n cho,,,,an o,r,ontor m,Itom
= n Morse mmuiactrrcr scranton
Thomas H. Barrett. engineer. Dickson City.
49, Peter Ramcr, tailor Scranton.
h. T.. Miller, undertaken, Dalevile.
T. 5. Price, miner Scranton
John Moihit' agent DuhmoFe'
The case they had to deal with was a
SANDER suit growing out of a neigh
bors quarrel. Caroline Hines was the
plaintiff, and William Sames the de-
fendant. A verdict for the plaintiff in
The sum of Sl25 was awarded.
The motion of Attorneys Price and
Hannah for binding instructions for n
verdict for the defendant in the coal
case of Thomas Davis ct al. against A.
Wheaton, on the ground that the suit
was not prousht Wlthih SIX years from