The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-12-20
ARGUING FOR A new trial
Case of Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany Against Johnson and Winton.
STATEMENTS MADE By COUNSEL
Papers Taken by the Court. Which VIII
Pass Upon the Case Later Other Cases
That Were Argued-Those Con-
tinucd and Settled.

Judge Gunster heard arguments for
and against a new trial yesterday in
the case of the Mutual Life Insurance
| company, of New York city, against o.
S. Johnson and Mrs Catherine Winton.
City Solicitor Torrey opened the argu-
ment on behalf of the plaintiff. He
held that a new trial should be granted
because the court erred in passing upon
the law points submitted by the plain
tiff.
In 1880, Mr.. Torrey said, w. w. Win
ton gave two judgments to his wife,
Catherine Winton, one amounting to
$4,000, the other to $4,000. These judg
ments We're given when w. W. Winton
was shown to be insolvent, Mr. Torrey
argued, and the purport of them was TO
defraud Mr.. Winton's creditors. Sub
sequently another note was given by
Mr.. WintOn to his son-in-law, Thomas
Livey, for sum u little over IS, 900.
Mr.. Torrey attacked the good faith Of
this transaction also, and read tran
script of the testimony of some wit
nesses whose evidence supported the
theory of fraud.
EX-Attorney General Palmer, of
| Wilkes Barre. made the rebutting ar
gument and was followed by eX-Judge
Garrick M. Harding. Their argument
was that Mrs. Winton was justified in
accepting the two judgments from her
| husband, as it was proved by com
petent witnesses that she held a mort
gage against her husbands estate for
| oh 20 ipb hp-
queathed to her by her father.
Court Took the Papers.
And, as it was shown that there had
been a money transaction between her
self and husband, under the law and
by virtue of the traditions of the su-
preme court Mr.. Winton had the right
to name a preferred creditor, and that
one very naturally would be his wife.
| Further, the sale of the thirty acres
of land in dispute was not made on the
strength of the notes held by Mrs. Win
ton but upon the note of $1,000 given
to Thomas Livey. The papers were
submitted TO court and Judge Gunster
will pass upon them ana hand down
an opinion. r.
An interesting case was that of j. NJ.
c. Ranck against G.. w. Watson, an
application for a rule to satisfy judg-
ment. The plaintiff sold building and
lot on Spruce street to Mr.. Watson,
the agreement price being $500. The
latter claims that in the deed Mr..
Ranck agreed to convey a frontage OF
fifteen feet, and that only fourteen feet
! &c hn h1
would pay for and he made out his
check for $3.50, which Mr.. Ranck ac-
cepted. They compromised the matter
yesterday Mr.. Watson agreeing to pay
the remaining $3.50.
| Other cases argued were: New York
and Ontario Land company VS.. Laura
Weidner, rule for a new trial; George
Seal VS.. John Gilboy James Mack VS.
c. L. Bell; George Seal VS.. Michael
Leonard. certiorari; Pottsville Iron
company VS.. John Coniff, certiorari
w. II. Davenport VS.. C. +. Patterson
rule to open judgment, and Julia Con-
ley, S. Burska, Mary Werlich, Jacob
Kline, Mary L. Clark, Charles Mengle,
Patrick Kearney, ID. Mahon, Adam
Werlich. Frank Yakus, Michael Ken
nedy, II. s. Knape, Charles Kellerman
and Fred Brown VS.. Wilkes-Barre and
Scranton Railroad company, rules tc
set aside service of summons
These Were Continued.
| Cases continued were: James Kin
ney vs., Mary TighG certiorari; NJ
Powell & Co. VS.. Joseph Haddy, rule tc
open judgment; Buckwalter Stove COM
pany, Gaule and Town Manufacturing
company, Merchant & Co., and Basset
Presley &c Train VS.. Henry Battin &
Co., rule to dissolve attachments.
Cases settled We're: NJ. Raker VS.. A.
NJ Jaggard, certiorari; Prudential In
surance company VS.. Patrick Henni-
gan, certiorari; w. A. Mullaney VS.
Samuel Crowley, certiorari; w. 10. Gil
hool VS.. George Fihoar, certiorari; c.
Skepenaitis VS.. August Wardu, GER
tiorari. Judgment was reversed in the
certiorari case of Catherine Burli VS.
Michael Moran. In re adoption OF Ethel
Jones argument was submitted The
demurrer was sustained in the plea OF
abatement of =. Derby & Co. VS.. j.
Gardner Sanderson and others.