The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-01-29
Strange Disappearance During Case
on Trial in Court Room No. =.
VAS AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT
In the Main Court Room Case Had to BE
Continued Because Contract Gould
Not BE Found-O Other Cases
Heard and Acted Upon.

county. Attorneys ii. NJ. hannah anu
A. ID. Dean appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Attorney John f. Scragg and At
torney Manning for the defendants.
The suit was brought to recover S159.SO
with interest.
In November, 1891, the plaintiffs held
a judgment note against a. A. Ayers.
of PlDckville for $759.S0 and were about
to levy on his effects on the strength
of it when paper was drawn up
granting a stay for four months to ena-
BILE Ayers to raise the money to pay
it. The paper was signed by Mr. Nc
Dermott and MIR. Barber as sureties.
At the expiration of four months the
Judgment was not satisfied by Ayers
and Lverlght, Greenwald II Co. began
an action to recover from the sureties.
The paper that they signed was pro-
duced in court yesterday morning, nav
ing been in the custody of Attorney A.
d. Dean ever since it was executed.
say That 1t Was Changed.
Both of the defendants We're positive
that the seals that appear on the paper
at the end of their names were placed
there after their signatures We're at
tached to the paper and without their
knowledge They also allege that they
signed it on Sunday, Nov. 70, 1881, but
the document itself sets forth that 1t
was signed on Saturday, Nov. 2S. 1881.
1t is cOntended that the paper is in
valid from the fact that 1t was executed
on Sunday. When court convened
after the noon recess it became neces-
slIy to use the paper in question in the
cross eXaminat tion of witnesses, but 1t
could not be found. Attorney Dean
made "a diligent search but was unable
to locate it,
The suggestion was then made that
the case be continued, as the paper was
practically the basis of the suit, but
Judge Purdy declined to make such
an order. The testimony was all heard
yesterday afternoon before court ad-
journed. If the paper has not materl-
alized before court cOnvenes this morn
ing another effort will be made to have
a Juror withdrawn and the case put
over until the paper is found.
Another Missing Paper.
Before Judge Edwards, who is pre-
siding in the main court room, the case
Of W. T. Smith against NJ. Stipp was
the first one called for trial. Mr..
Smith invoked the aid of the courts to
collect a coal bill of $1S3.44. Mr.. Stlpp
did not appear to make defense and a
verdict of $20i35, the full amount of the
bill, with interest, was returned in ia
vor of the plaintiff.
The next case in which a jury was
SnfA nd
Lock company against NJ. NJ Dewitt.
In January, 1892, ii is alleged that an
agreement was entered into between
the parties to the action by which Mr..
Dewitt agreed to purchase a safe
valued at $670 from the plaintiff COM
plny. The safe was shipped to this
city over THE Central Railroad of New
Jersey and still lies in the freight sta
ton of that company.
Mr.. Dewitt refused to accept it, al
leging that it was not satisfactory, and
the company brought suit to recover
the value of the safe. The case was
heard before abritrators and an appeal
was taken from their decision. At the
trial before the arbitrators the contract
was offered in evidence, but when the
case came on for trial yesterday It
could not be found.
A Continuance Allowed.
Satisfactory proof could not be made
that it was lost and therefore the copy
could not be offered in evidence. I'M
der this state of facts Attorney j. w.
Carpenter, who with Attorneys G. S.
Woodruff and C. C. Donovan, appeared
for the plaintiff, asked for a continu-
ance to enable them to submit proof of
the loss of the contract. The motion
was opposed by Attorneys r. A. Zim-
norman and G.. NJ. Watson, attorneys
for Mr.. Dewitt, but Judge Edwards
said he thought that it was proper
case for judicial discretion and to pre-
vent miscarriage of justice he would
grant the continuance
h. L. Griffith was the plaintiff in
the next action called for trial, and
Ambrose DePew and Gilbert DePew
were the defendants. They We're repre-
sented by Attorney A. A. Chase and
Attorneys Hulslander and Vosburg APP
|
was caused by horse trade. Griffith
was in the butcher business at Provi-
dence and made an even swap of horses
with the defendants. They became
dissatisfied subsequently with the ami
NAL they obtained from Griffith and
traded back again without .his knowl-
edge. He obtained writ of replevln
to recover the horse and in that way
the case got into court. The defen-
dants allege that an agreement was
entered into by the terms of which
the horses could be exchanged if not
satisfactory. The case had not been
given ITO the jury when court adjourned.
Before Judge Archibald in court room
No. the ejectment suit of Eliza Small
end others against f. j. Ehrgood was
on trial all day. Attorney w. w.
Watson appeared for the plaintiff, and
Attorney II. Il. Wells for the defend
ants. One-half acre of land at Moscow
worth about 81 900 is in dispute The
plaintiffs hold the deed, but Ehrgood,
who is in possession, alleges that he
Is the legal owner. Testimony for the
defence was being heard when court
adjourned.
Disposition of Other Cases.
Other cases on the list Were disposed
of in the following manner: Settled,
John Davis VS.. Peoples Street Railway
company, trespass: Pancoast Coal COM
pany vs. Dickson City Water company,
asgumpst; S. II. MILAN VS.. Metropoli-
tan Life Insurance company, appeal
ontinued-Griniths &Jones VS.. Fran
els Seeley. trespass; Tunis Lumber
company vs.. Spring Brook Lumber
company, assumpstt; B. Il. Carr vs.
C. S. Wethrill and Sarah Wetherill,
sci. ia; Thomas Coniff vs.. City Of
Scranton trpenaae, w q Townsend