The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-03-06
CIRCUIT COURT.

CIRCUIT COURT.
In the circuit court, the day was con-
sumed with the trial of the trespass
case of William Robinson against the
Delaware and Hudson company. II.
ID. Carey and 1. II. Burns represent
the plaintiff The defense is represent
ed by James II. Torrey of Wells & Tor
rey, and l.. l.. Carr, OF Albany, general
counsel of the Delaware and Hudson
company. The plaintiffs side had not
yet finished at adjourinng time.
Robinson sues for $4,000 damages
for an injury to his leg. He alleges he
was walking from u Delaware and
Hudson train to his home on Belmont
street, January 10, 1900, after dark, and
taking a path through the Delaware
& Hudson yard which persons bound
that way were accustomed to use,
walked into a vat of boiling potash,
sustaining burns which rendered his
right leg useless. There was snow on
the ground at the time, he explained
and the top of the vat which was on a
level with the ground was covered over.
Just as he was about to pass the vat
Il gush of steam from an exhaust pipe
came up in his face, and in attempting
to dodge the steam one foot was placed
on the top of the vat. The cover which
was made of boards gave way and his
leg was percipitated into the boiling
potash.
PERMISSION WAY
The case hinges on whether or not the
route taken by Robinson is what is
known in the law as a permission
way" that Is whether or not it had
become a customary path for pedes-
TRANS by reason of long suffrance on
the part of the company. The defense
will be that there was no pathway
there and that Robinson was tres
passer.
The plaintiff told that he had used
this route for many years and that 1t
was a common pathway for persons
living on Belmont street and that i'm
mediate neighborhood who came from
the Delaware and Hudson trains. 1t
was their custom, he said, to stay on
the train until it was pulled up into
the yard, after it had stopped at the
upper station, and then cut across the
yard By this alleged pathway to Bel
mont street, crossing the river by the
"mill bridge" The company, he aver
I,
William r. Johnson, former master
mechanic for the Delaware and Hud-
son company: Nathan b. English, a
former brakeman: NJ. J. brennan, an
Ontario and Western brakeman. and
William Mainwaring, former laborer
at the shops, were called to prove the
claim that the route pursued by Rob
inson was a "permissive way" but
t,,t,, thn St-hn
strongly support this contention.
DIR. BAILEY's TESTIMONY.
DR.. D. L. Bailey, who attended Rob
inson, testified that the sensatory
nerves of the leg We're affected, but
that the nerves of motion had escaped
serious, injury.
At the conclusion of the plaintiffs 9
presentation of evidence, today. the de-
fendant will move for a non-slit.
The rule obtaining in all the New
York state and many other courts, that
an attorney shall stand when eXamin-
ing witness, as well as when address,
ing the court, also prevails in the Fed
eral court.
Mr. Carr arose and remained stand
ing each time he examined a witness
During the afternoon, as Mr.. Carey
was about begin an examination in
a sitting post. on, Judge Archibald sug-
gested to him that the better way
would be to stand up, except in very
long cases.
Mr.. Carr remarked to the court that
he had stood UP when examining wit
nesses from force of habit, as it is re-
quired in his state, and not because he
wanted to appear singular or anything
of that kind.
Mr.. Burns was absent at this time
and when he came to examine a wit
ness he was sitting. Judge Archibald
remarked to him: "Nlr. Burns, in every
picture l have seen of a court, the dis
tinguished counsel are represented in
a standing posture"
Mr.. Burns didn't quite "catch on"
for a moment, but when the purport OF
the judges words broke on him he as
sumed a standing posture, and said:
ooh, excuse me. Going to take pic
tura?'
Thereafter. all the attorneys arose
and remained standing while engaged
in the examination of witness.