Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh Bridge Co.

Pee Cuejam, This case was argued with Commonwealth v. Keystone Bridge Company, No. 18, May term, 1893, [the preceding case,] and involved substantially the same questions. For reasons suggested in opinion just filed in that case, and also in the opinion of the learned trial judge, we think there is nothing in the record that requires either reversal or modification of the judgment. Judgment affirmed.