Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-02-11
COURT OF COTM0N Pleas.
Before Judge Livingston.

-.
owner. &C., and VI. ii. iIo.cn:c.lcr, con
tractor. SCI. tn. sur mechanics lien. The
testimony showed that i'll the year 1876
Hershey nla,ie acontract with Ho.entogler
to erect tire houses in the borough of Col
umba. lloEento.!cr hired !. man named
Hartman t" do the work but the latter
left before it WIS finished and then Grove
was hired. The plaintiff claims that he
did work and furnished material between
December, 1876. ana March, 1877, to the
amount Of $685., and as he was not paid he
filed Il lien for the amount. The defense was
that the cha, &c by Grove was tho high, as
the work was nearly finished when he he
gan. That 1T the time he was doing this
work isc had several other contracts ON
hand where much time had been spent by
him, while he charged the defendants
with time which he did not give them.
They further claim that the last charges
in the bill! had been given date to March,
1877, to bring the lien within the time
prescribed by law for ii'in. liens, rs the
house was finished ::IL occupied 10y March,
1877. On trial.
This afternoon, pending the decision OF
the court the parties settled the case and
a verdict was taken in favor Of the plain
tiff for sl52.36.
t;e!"re Judge Patterson.
The Susquclanna Mutual fire insurance
company vs. Samuel Scabcr and Samuel
CRUDE, tr:.liB" as Scaber & CRUDE. This
IS an action to recover assessments made
by the company, OH the defendants.
who were ine,nbc-S Of it. The plaintiff
showed by Il. X. lIItntzingcr, Of Harris
burg, the general agent Of the company in
Harrisburg, that u policy was issued to
the defendants on the 10th OF April, 1877.
for live years Oil their planning mill ut Lititz.
for the sum of Sl,J0O; they paying cash
:72 ,:.'l y noe for 81 ao0 payable by as
sessmcnts, when required By the company
to meet losses. The company made the
fniiOwin" asst, ;IncntS Oh the plaintiffs in
three years 1871, $l2G; 1871. Si3l.j
1873, $40. These amounts were never
paid and this suit was brougii. to recover
the amount of assessments, with interest.
The plaintiff, offered the applications of
the defendants and the policy in evidence.
The defense offered t" prove that the
first contract was made with n. y. Reid
enl,aci,, the local agent nf the company,
who agreed to insure The defendants on
the :.;ii.,:a! premium plan and they were
not to he called upon to pay assessments
for fires. This contract was ratified by
plicatinn. By the defendants who objected
to the printed form. wi.ic', contained the
terms live years IoT assessments Hunt
Finger said it was only the usual form,
which would not b: adhered tn in this
case. Cu,icr this arrangement the de-
PENDANTS insured their property, but do
not consider themselves Liable for assess
ments.
This testimony to virtually anEul the
written contract was objected to by the
plaintiff on the ground that the company
was E"t bound by any arrangements Of its
agents Unless it was doEe in writing as u
notice t" the company at the time of the
application. This WA not allowed by the
court, a"'! the defense offered to prove
that with a printed circular the agent,
RciGenbaci:, informed them that they
were soin, business on the mutual and
annual premium plan, with premium notes
and they could insure in either way.
Samuel Seabcr was called to prove this,
but it was ruled out by the court.
Il. D iscidcnbacli was then called by the
defense to prove these facts: that he
agreed to insure the defendants on thi:;
plan; he sent IN Application to Hurtzinger,
in Harrisburg; HuntziHscr went to Lititz
and took with him an application after
he objected to the rate HuntzinScr agreed
that the defendants be insured on
the annual interest plan. as contracted by
him; as the defendants insisted all along
that they would not insure on the assess
inent plan; further, that the a72 paid at
the time WIS the annual interest of the
$1,000 no:c.
TIE defence objected to this testimony
Is Eein, an oral modification to il written
contract. The court reserved their deci-
iion i'll regard to the admission Of the tcs-
.iTony until this afternoon. On trial.
Current business.
S. j. IcCarroi, esq, u member of tie
Dauphn county bar. and at present dis
Iict attorney. was a,lElittcsl to practice
n our c"urts. He is engaged in the in
'uraDc" case before judge Patterson.
II. S. Shc,lck, Republican and Simon W.
taub Democrat, were appointed watchers
or the election in the Second ward.