The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-06-20


ion to discuss with any clearness or salts
faction, as II seems to me, the underly.
Ing problem why the property rights or
the one party were superior to those OF
the other. or on what just basis the one
should give way to the other.
On the other hand the plaintiffs were
apparently just as much entitled to the
enjoyment OF the grounds and residence
which they had built up and adorned.
including the stream OF pure water with
which nature had supplied 1t, as were
the defendants to develop the coal lands
which they owned and on the other. to
deny the defendants the right to mine In
the only way they could was to destroy
the whole value Of their property In or
der to preserve a part of that of the
plaintiffs.
In this conflict OF interests which ought
to give way, and why? 1t does not meet
the inquiry to say that the defendants
business and the general interest OF the
community were to be regarded as supe-
rior to the individual and private rights
of the plaintiffs AS was well said by
Black. j., In Wheatley VS.. Chrisman. ~
Pa. 2OS: "The necessities of one mans
business cannot be the standard of an
others rights in thing which belongs to
both But that as 1t seems to me. is not
all there is to be said upon the subject.
as ! shall endeavor to point out later OIL
AN ADMIRABLE ARGUMENT.
When the case was called for trial the
second time. a customary right to foul
streams with mine water In the anthia-
cite region was additionally set up, but
without avail; and the second writ of er-
ror was thereupon prosecuted. i had the
pleasure to be present in the Supreme
court when 1t came up. and heard the ad-
mirabe argument of Samuel Dickson.
who was associated with the late An
drew T.. McClintock, of Wilkes-B Barre.
for the defendants
The chief thing I recall, however, was
the graphic picture of the pollution of the
Schuylkill. not only by the water dis
charged into 1t from the Pottsvile mine
region, but from other sources of less
dignity and more Objectionable character
further on: and the fortunate provision
of nature by which an extensive forma-
tion Of limestone rock had been interposed
on this side of the coal measure which
acted as a natural filter, precipitating the
material held in solution and clarifying
the water before it reached this city.
But, however interesting and reassurinS
the argument 1t was of no value.
In an opinion Of Gordon, ]. (94 Pa. 302).
the previous ruling of the court was
maintained and the custom set up de-
clared unreasonable. 1t Is to be noted
that at this second appearance of the
case. the members of the Supreme court
had somewhat changed. Chief Justice Ag-\
new having retired and Judge Woodward
having died, and Judge Sterrett and
Judge Green been substituted. Neither
was the case heard by full bench. Chief
Justice Sharswood and Judge Green not
being present, and of the five judges who
disposed of it. Judge Sterrett Joined Judge
PaXson in his dissent
VERDICT A MEAGRE ONE
But the verdict at the second trial was
a meagre one; the plaintiffs claimed $1,000
and got $3.50. and took out writ of error
on their own account in consequence.
This, by some fortuitous circumstances.
did not come up until three years after
wards. and in the meantime the court had
again changed. Chief Justice SharswOOd
had retired and Judge Clark had taken
his place; but as Judge Green and Judge
Clark were both absent at the third argu-
ment, the case was disposed of by rhc
same five judges as upon the last occas-
ion, and with the same result In an
opinion by Turnkey. Judge U0o Pa. 500.
the court adhered to its previous position
on the question of liability, but reversed
on the measure of damages, and the case
went back for another trial. at which a
substantial verdict of $500 was obtained.
OF this sum $3.50 was supposed to be for
the loss of the fish in the strcam-twenty
five trout at $40 fisll-a very moderate
figure, as every fisherman will allow.
On the appeal which followed, which
was the final one Q13 Pa. 1860 the case
was called before full bench, composed
of the five judges who had heard it on
the last two occasions. with Judge Green
and Judge Clark. to whom it was entirely
new. The result is we'll known. the two
new members of the court Joined the two
who had previously dissented. and the
four became the majority. overruing tho
former three decisions and reversing
without vcnire..
AN HONEST PLUMBER.
1t was at this trial that the instructive
opinion of a witness. who admitted that
he was the only honest plumber in Scran-
ton, was given with regard to others of
the same craft. The plaintiffs having
called Frank w. Watkins. another plumb
er, to prove the value of the plumbing in
their residence, James j. palor-let no
one be disturbed. for these are not real
riames-was called to contradict him, and
on cross-eXaminatiOn the following col
lOquy occurred:
%. From what you saw of the plumb
ing in the Sanderson house, was that u
poor job?
"A l consider that it was quite a poor
job.
20. How long have you known Mr..
Watkins?
"a. l suppose must have known him
fifteen years.
20. ! wait to ask YOU II Mr. Watkins
was employed to do such a jub as that
upon contract. and with no limit as to ex-
pense, but simply to do good job Of
plumbing regardless of cost do you be-
lieve from your knowledge of him that he
would put in a poor job of plumbing?
"A. In the first place, | do not know
whether he would be able to put in good
one or not, and in the next place do not
know anything about his honesty, wheth- ]
er 1t is such as would allow him to do so ,
If he was able.
20. Is Mr. Watkins an honest plumber?
"A. l do not know
20. Is there such a thing in Scranton?
"A. I only know one.
%. Please give us his name.
"A. James j. Pallor, hygicnic plumber
and inventor of Pallors patent electric
self-regulating draft for furnaces"
CHARACTER UNCHANGED.
Upon an examination of the opinion of
Judge Clark, who spoke for his fellows
little more will he found in 1t, aside from |
the authorities cited and discussed. than |
In the dissenting opinion of Judge PaNson |
on the first writ, Attention was again |
called to the fact that the defendants
had done onthing to change the character
of the stream, except what resulted from |
the natural use and enjoyment of their |
own property the impurities found in the y
water discharged into 1t from the mine. |
arising from natural and not artificial |
causes, The right to nine, II was insist
ed, was an incident to the ownership Of |
the coal, and when exercised In the ordi- |
nary manner and with due care the owner |