The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-02-06
ABOUT OUTDOORRELIEF
judges Archibald and GunSter Listen 10 Argu.
msatS OF Two Appeals,
The QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION


The QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION
Attorney Scragg Says That the Act
of 1862 Considered with Its Supple
ment of 1888 Does Not Permit Poor
Directors to Give Out Door Relief.
Attorney Davis Argues to the Con-
trarY-Cases Continued and Settled
Before judges Archibald and Gunster
yesterday arguments were heard on
the appeal of the Scranton Poor dis
trtct from the report OF Attorney Rich
ard Holgate. the auditor appointed by
the court to report findings OF law and
facts with regard to the question of
outdoor relief, and on the appeal OF the
directors of the Scranton Poor district
from the report OF the auditors OF the
district Judge Edwards formerly
acted as attorney for the directors and
therefore did not sit on the bench dur.
ing the argument Of the case.
Judge Archibald said that when he
was practicing at the bar he was en-
| ployed to argue one phase of the case
as ut present raised, aud felt some deli
cacy about now listening to argument
on it and passing upon these sams
points in his Judicial capacity.
The object Of the litigation is to set
tie the troublesome question of
whether or not the directors of this
poor district have the right to grant
out door relief.
HOW THE QUESTION WAS RAISED
Some time ago Mrs. Swan at meet.
ing of the poor board asked for legal
opinion from John F. Scragg, attorney
OF the board, on tho question of ont
door relief. Hs decided they had no
power TO grant out door relief aud in
conformity with that opinion the dis
trict auditors suroharged the directors
with money paid out for out door relief.
An appeal was taken from the action
OF the auditors aud the court appointed
Attorney Holgate to pass upon the law
and the facts involved and report to
! court
His report was to the effect that the
board had the right to grant ont door
relief after the application had been
| approved by two magistrates From
this report the district appealed and
both OF these appeals came up yestsr
| day in argument court.
| Mr. Scragg maintained that the act
Of 1862, which is special one govern =
! ing this district, must be construed as
| a whole in connection with the sup
elemental act Of 1883. II this is done
he argues that outdoor relief is not al.
/ lowable.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
He also questioned the jurisdiction
. Of this court to pass upon the matter rs
the act of 1862 specifies that all appeals
must he taken to the court Of common
pleas Of Luzerne county. He quoted
an opinion of Judge Handley, when
president judge Of this county to sus-
tain his position on the question Of
I jurisdiction.
Attorney Davis. in beginning his ar
gument, said there could be no doubt
that the poor directors always had
| tie power to grant out door relief To
| interpret the act as not giving such
| power would make it necessary to go
outsids OF all canous of construction
that he ever heard of. The poor laws,
he said, were not framed to put persons
\ in almshouses hut to make them self
supporting Under Section % of the
act of 1862, he held that the board has
the power to give outdoor relief in two
different WAYS. and it iS only by a
strained construction and putting SEC
( tions 8 and 10 together by means OF the
supplement OF 1863 that a contrary con-
struction can be arrived at.
POWER OF THE COURT.
Mr.. Davis said that If our courts
possess tho power Of appointing poor
directors which they have exercised for
several years, they certainly have the
power to pass upon an appeal arising
from their official acts. He then care
fully reviewed the act OF 1852 and its
supplement and quoted a number Of
authorities to sustain the intsrprets-
tiOn which he places on the law.
At 80 the argument was completed
and court took the papsrs Its decl-
sion will be awaited with interest.
The cases on this weeks argument
list reported settled were: Neil
Hackett & Co. against Thomas Lucas
aud Son, rule to dissolve attachment
Henry Newman & Co against Thomas
Lucas and Son, rule to dissolve attach
| -, Dnr pak ~ aLr
F. May rule to strike off appeal B. II.
Throop against s. d. Vickery rule to
open judgment.
THE CASES CONTINUED.
The following cases were continued
City of Scranton against Ralph Lease
ruls to open judgment; Mulherin &
Company against Thomas Jones. rule
to open Judgment, John Benore & Son
against James Clark aud others, rule Ia
take off satisfaction; Carrie z. Robin
son against N B. Robinson, rule for
decree in divorce; Luther Foster
against Nancy 0. Foster. rule for ali
mony; W. f. Wombacher against
Allen Cole and others, rule
to open. judgment; Commonwealth
% Pennsylvania against Mary
Gilgallon, rule on ]. ]. Lsngan, jus
tice OF the peace to com plete record
Universal Fashion company va. J. II.
Ladwig, rule for judgment; In re adop,
ton of Mary A., A. c.. John E. aud
George Morgsns, rules for DEGREES In
adoption; in re adoption of Robert r.
Walter. rule for decree in adoption; P.
F. Mcdonnell against Edward Had
gins, rule to strike off judgment; N A
Hubert against W. X Back, rule for
newtrial New York, Susqushanna and
Western Coal company against A d.
and f. NJ. Spencer. demurrer pleB
and answer.
-
Beadleston & Woerz's and Ballantlne'
| AIaa ,ra tho ha.t r. L WALau aUant N