Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1906-01-04
THE COUNTY courts.

The second day of the trial of the
damage suit of the More-Jonas Glass
.comnanv against the West Jersey and
.Seasbore Railroad Company resulted
in the plaintiff corporation complet-
ing its testimony, and the opening OF
the defense by the railroad company.
The case has been very closely fol-
lowed by Court and jury, the latter
being particularly attentive. and was
apparently impressed with the case
presented, by the witness for the glass
concern. In comparison with the case
made out at the September term, the
consensus of opinion seems tosbe that
the glass company has been more thor
|oueh and much more convincing this
time. Its testimony as to the IRE be-
ling upon the exterior of the building
was direct, and the cross examination
lof particularly able counsel for the
railroad company failed to.shake the
evidence on this line. Then the glass
company was able to successfully and
definitely fix its losses. The testi.
smony of Mr.. Richard More was re-
llmarkable achievement. He was COM
spelled to testify as to values of glass
ware wholly from memory, and he dis
played absolute, accurate knowledge
of his business.
The testimony as to the discovery of
the damaged fire screen in the loco
motive was boldly presented.
/ In opening it's case the railroad cor.
poration promises developments that
will far exceed the case made out by
the defense in September. Mr.. Bour-
sgeois was particularly elaborate in his
opening, and he promised to thorough
sly and satisfactorily resist and deny
every proposition made by the glass
company.
The details of yesterday afternoon
follow:
Mr.. More again described his visit
to Camden on the 9Th of July, and his
visit, in company with Cnas. D. Car
'ney and Prosecutor Fithian, to the
Railroad company's yard and an in
spection of engine No. 6045, after mid
hight that night, detailing the defects
iscovered in the screen of the engine,
which he said consisted in one place
of patch on the screen. in which the
aneshes were about three times the
size of the meshes of the screen; in
another place was hole of over an
hch size, alongside of pipe running
mp through the screen; in another
place the screen was sagged so as to
leave an opening along the screen.
He described the processes he used to
get to the engine and to see the screen.
The most of Mr.. More's examina.
zion at the afternoon session consisted
IA giving in detail the value of the
glass destroyed in the fire. On this
destroyed ware he said there was no
Falvage.
ka OA LIS OAO5b- MI.
a 'o's made an endeavor to raise the
.e of union and non union glass
works, but the Court vigorously ex-
cluded this testimony MI. Bourgeois
Explained that he wished to show
cause for the. fire other than the rail-
road. The Court said he couldn't al
low it.
8 Charles D. Carney took the witness
stand after Mr.. More's examination.
Mr.. Carney detailed the inspection of
locomotive No. 6045, as was given in
full at the former trial.
8 J. Hampton Fithian was put on the
stand after Mr.. Carney and told of
bis visit to inspect engine No. 6O45,
lust as he had done in the former
trial EsEs
Samuel w. Davis, of Camden, the
man who opened the locomotive head
Tor Mr.. More and Mr.. Carney, was
the last witness called by the plain.
tiff. He did not respond and the
plaintiffs rested their case.
The defense was opened by Mr..
Bourgeois, who declared that he would
show that thisscreen, about which SO
much had been said, Well, they
didn't know anything about it.'' He
would prove that the screen of the
engine was in perfect condition on
July 4th. He said he should ask the
Court for an order of view for the
jnry to go in body to view the
screen.
The screen was bolted fast to, AN iron
nange in SUCH manner that it would
Pc impossible for those witnesses to
gee the holes which they said they had
seen, and it was fastened in such
manner as it was impossible for any
sparks to get through. He said he