The Fulton County news. [volume] (McConnellsburg, Pa.) 1899-current, 1902-10-16
VOLUME 4.
OCTOBER COURT,

An the Old Cases Cleaned up
For the first time in several
oors we have clean calendar
,Il the old cases having been dis
nosed of. AS we went to press
iost week the Road Plow case was
icing tried. Following is an ao-
tract of the principal cases.
2. G. Austin Mfg. Co., now use
of Miss Florence Hanks, VS.. The
township of Ayr.-In September
1892. an agent for a road plow
called on George w. Glenn ana
David L. Rinedollar, at that time
,nnervisors of Ayr township
nth a view to selling the town
shin one of the machines. 1t was
finally understood that the agent
should have one of his plows ship
oed, and if it came up to his rep
resentations, the supervisors
would buy it for the township
Accordingly on the Goth OF NO
vomber a test was made OF the
machine at Jugtown, and on the
road near DR.. Cooks, in the pres
ence of the agent, the superVl-
sors and number of taxpayers
of the township, many OF the
taxpayers protesting against the
utility of the machine and It's
purchase by the supervisors
The supervisors, however, usea
their own Judgment and oough'
the plow for $3.50, giving two
notes-one payable December l.
1898. aud the other, December l.
1894, both with interest from
date The term of office OF the
supervisors who had purchased
the plow had expired, and others
serving when the notes became
due, and they, with each succeed
ing set of officers, refused to pay
the notes. which soon after the
sale of the plow, had been pur
chased by Miss Florence hanks
of Brush Creek township.
Just prior to the end OF si'
wears limitation, suit was brough
against the township for the pay
ment, and the matter was hear'
in court, October term 1871
Judge Swope, holding that ther'
was not sufficient deliberation OF
the part of the supervisors or
dered compulsory nonsult. al
appeal was carried up to the su
perior court which reversed th
lower court, and the case wa
sent back for trial again.
At the trial the Court held tina
before the order requesting tn
shipment of the plow on trls
was given, there was no delloerf
tion on the part of the superv
sors. The Court directed the j.
ry to fine for the defendant. E'
ceptions were taken to the opll
ion of the Court, and the cas-
viii, likely, again be taken to tn
superior court.
Mrs. Sarah A. Pittman VS.. Ge
W.Cooper. Mrs. Pittman ownst TT
property in which is H. @. Smi'
and Co.'S store. George W. Coopt
owns that adjoining on the eas
A few years ago Mr.. Cooper bui
q house on his lot adjoining, ar
filed up the lot back of the ne
building. He also erected a she
along the line, the roof projectir
over Mrs. Pittman's lot. Mr
Pittman claimed that the wat
thus turned onto her lot by tl
filling Of his lot and by the drai
age from the shed roof, damag
her lot and caused her cellar, al
that of her tenant, the storekee
er, to be flooded, thus causi
damage to her property as W
as loss of rent. This case W
down for trial two or three tim
before this, but as often cont
ued. This case came before
jury Wednesday forenoon a
was not disposed of until Thu
day morning when the jury
turned a verdict of twenty.t
collars damage to be paid by G
W. Cooper to Mrs. Pittman, a
Mr. Cooper, of course, to pay
costs.
Among the suits for trial W,
Q) Elsie Graatbaad adpx