Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-10-10
Interesting and Important Argument
in the Supreme Court.
HEARINGS FOR SOME NEW TRIALS.
A Long List Of Cases for Next Week, With
Several Murder Trials.
YESTERDAY IN THE COUNTY COURTS

10 lawyers, as 1t involves the validity OF 9
practice that has obtained over for 30 years.
1t is an appeal by defendants, and also by
Alpheus NJ. Temple and Arthur C. Lindsey
from the ruling of the Common Pleas OF
Greene county, at No. 1876 January term,
1890, on an attachment execution, A. A.
Purman and B. Donley for appellants, and
Wise & Minor and r. L. Crawford for ap-
pellee, certiorari from the Common Pleas
of Greene county. The abstract of the pro-
ceedings showing the issue and how it was
made is as follows:
Precept of j. H. Wise, attorney for George
Wisecarver, to the Prothonotary to issue q
writ of attachment against D. w. Braden ct
al Tor $4,000, with interest, 'etc., directing
the Sheriff to attach and levy upon any
money or effects belonging to Braden, Lautz
and Temple in possession of w. T. H.
Pauley, and to insert in said writ clause in
the nature of scire facias against a gar
nishee requiring Pauley to appear at next
term and show why judgment of plaintiff
should not be levied on effects of defend
ants, or either by them, in his hands.
WANTED SERVICE SET ASIDE.
Exceptions to service of the writ and mo-
tion to set aside service and dismiss the in
terrogations and answers of Pauley were
filed. A rule was granted in course of
events to show cause, and Sheriff John 7.
Goodwin petitioned for leave to amend re-
turn of service, and on March II, 1890, his
petition was granted. After multiplicity
of proceedings, on June 16, 1891, judgment
was given in favor of Wisecarver against
W T. H. Pauley, garnishee, for S6,63O,
with interest, costs of suit, etc.
The court ordered that judgment Hbe en-
tered for plaintiff, Wisecarver against
Pauley, garnishee, for the amount above
mentioned, and on June 20 last, j. G. Tenn
pie, defendant, W. 7. Pauley, garnishee,
A. NJ. Temple and A. 1. Lindsay, parties
claiming the monies by virtue of an assign
ment excepted to the order and Judgment
and had bill of exceptions filed.
Appellants attorneys give the history of
the case as follows: In 1886 Lautz was
director and cashier of the Farmers and
Drovers' National Bank, of Waynesburg,
and d. W. Braden was director and also
Vice President. Lautz employed Braden
to obtain for him $4,000. Lautz desired
Braden to procure Wisecarver to make his,
note to the bank for $4,000 with Braden &
Lautz as pretended securities Wisecarver
did so and gave his check to Braden for the
proceeds of the note, who handed the same
to Lautz.
COLLAPSE OE A CATTLE RANCH.
Braden & Lautz then gave Wisecaryer a
Judgment note for $4,000, with Julius F.
Temple as bail to save Wisecarverfr from pay,
ment of the note to the bank. The collapse
of live stock ranch in Wyoming caused
Braden & Lautz and others to fail to keep
their engagements, and creditors entered
judgments amounting in all to over $50, 900,
of which this $4,000 was part, and Wise
carver issued an attachment execution, as
stated above. The appellants say that the
service of the attachment on Pauley, gar
nishee, was not made in the manner re-
quired by acts of Assembly, and therefore
the judgment coming to j. +. Temple from
Pauley was not and is not levied and at
tached by the writ of attachment, but
was after the so-called service of
the writ the same as before, the full
property of Justus F. Temple and is still =,
free from the writ of attachment. These
judgments were entered November 81, 1889.
Among them was one by the Farmers and
Drovers' National Bank of Waynesburg
against Alpheus M. Temple, j. f. Temple
and w. S. Adamson for $780, j. F.
Temple was principal debtor and A NJ.
Temple and Adamson his bail. A. NJ. and
J. F. Temple next made six-months' note
for S. 900 on the First National Bank of
W ashingtOn, Pa, ,Alpheus NJ. Temple being
bail j. F. Temple next gave a note for
8, 500 to the City Deposit Bank of Pitts,
burg with A. 1. Lindsey ct al. as bail
THE WRIT WAS WRONGLY SERVED.
The transactions that finally culminated
IN suits are too numerous to follow up here,
out the attorneys for the appellants state
hat Hon. j. f. Temple ct al excepted and
asked the court to quash the writ, dismiss.
and answers, etc. First
because the Sheriff did not serve the writ
IN Pauley, as garnishee, as required by
.ule 9, section 6, of Common Pleas rules
md as required by act of Assembly; second,
because the Sheriff did not, as required by
# his bailiwick" to all the de- |
endants to appear and show, if they |
.ould, why Wisecarver's Judgment |
hould not be levied on their effects in the |
lands of Pauley, the garnishee; third, be- |
,ause the service of the writ of attachment |
s null and void, and fourth, because the |
Sheriff did not go to Pauley, the garnishee, |
md the defendants and there disclose in the |
presence of one or more creditable persons |
# the neighborhood that he, the Sheriff, |
Ittached debt, goods and effects. They |
luote Bryan VS.. Trout, Judge Paxson, p. |
SO: "It follows that neither the person of |
he defendont nor his property was before |
he court by the return of the Sheriff, and |
he entry Of judgment against him F
or want of appearance was er- |
oneous," and hold that the cases are
,arallel. Bryan VS. Front was a foreign at
achment to attach land, and section 40 of
he act of June 13, 1886, requires the Sheriff |
o attach houses and lands by '1eaving a copy
# the writ with the tenant or other persons
n actual possession, holding under the at
achment To the writ the Sheriff returned
hat he chad served the writ on Temple |
and as to defendants nihil." 4" Held |
hat this return was insufficient to warrant a /
Judgment for plaintiff, as it did not show /
hat Temple held under the defendant.
... ADMITTED HIS DEBT.
To all this the attorneys for the appellee
nswer that the garnishee filed his answer
o interrogatories admitting that he owed
ustus f. Temple S11 ,513 "a They hold it
o be not only absurd but ridiculous to be
old that the Common Pleas Courts of Penn
ylvania have no jurisdiction to permit
heir officers to amend a record, and that an
ttachment in execution is not served in the
anne manner as provided for the serv-
&c of a summons in personal
ction; that if the. position of the
ppellants is sustained they have made
Tonderful discovery, viz, that the courts
ave been travelling on the wrong road for
yer half a century. The standing of JUS
us F. Temple, to object to the application