The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-11-13
Opening NOVEMBER TERM
Cases That Were on Trial Yesterday
in Common Pleas Court.
MRS. HEWITT MADE NO DEFENSE
Allowed Her Husband to Get Divorce
by Default Suit of C. l.. Rice
Against Fidelity and Casualty
Company on Trial.

The November term of common pleas
court began yesterday morning and
cases were put on trial In the three
court rooms. Judge Archibald presided
in the main court room, Judge Peck, of
Towanda, in No. 2, and Judge Gunster
in No. 3. The divorce case Of w. ii.
Hewitt against Ella B. Hewitt was the
first called for trial before Judge Peck.
No appearance was put In for Mrs.
Hewitt and, after hearing evidence to
prove that she had been cruel to her
husband, verdict in his favor was
taken. The Hewitts live at Park Place
in this city.
A verdict was also taken for the plain
tiff in the case of John Dempsey
against John Kosloskie. The verdict
was for $Sl50, the full amount claimed
by Dempsey for erecting wall for the
defendant at Archibald Mr.. Kosloski
did not put in an appearance to offer
any defence.
Before Judge Archibald the case of
Fred K. jenkins against r. r. Howells
was tried. Jenkins worked for Howells
and claims that wages amounting to
$55 are due him. Howells says that not
only does he not owe jenkins, but on the
contrary that gentleman owes him
1854.
Says lie Collected Money.
1t Is alleged by the defendant that
jenkins, while in his employ, collected
various sums of money which he did
not turn over and these are offered as
an offset. The case was given to the
jury at 4.30. The plaintiff was repre-
| sented by Attorney George Peck and
the defendant by Attorney C. H. Soper.
In court room No. before Judge
Gunster the case of c. L. Rice, of this
city, against the Fidelity and Casualty
company, of New York, was put on
trial. City Solicitor Torrey and Attor-
ney W. w. Lathrope appeared for Mr..
Rice, and Willard & Warren for the
| company.
The case is brought to recover $25, 900
damages the plaintiff claims he suf-
| fered by reason of his discharge as the
general agent of the defendant COM
pany in November, 1883. Mr.. Rice
claims he was established as a general
agent Of the company in. certain coun-
ties of Northeastern Pennsylvania by
Mr. Clapp, of New York, the company's
general agent for Pennsylvania: that
he went on and built up large acci-
dent insurance business: that all of a
sudden he was discharged as such
agent and his business taken away
from him, in consequence Of which he
suffered great loss.
The plaintiffs counsel got into trou-
ble at the very outstart in proving any
contract at all with the company and
finally, after considerable legal wrang-
ling, counsel for plaintiff asked leave
of the court to amend their declaration
and get something more into the case.
The court gave them until tomorrow
morning to present the proposed
amendment and the case went over.
The Jennings Case.
After the Rice case is disposed of the
case Of John G. Jennings against the
Lehigh Valley Railroad company will
be put on trial. Mr. Jennings sues to
recover damages for the loss of his
sons services The latter was injured
in the collision at Mud Run on the Le-
high Valley road on Oct. 10, 1885,.
The cases reported settled yesterday
were William Brown against William
McDonough, wages appeal; Roderick
Howell against Henry Hawkey, eject
ment. The ejectment suit Of George
Sanderson and others against Loren2