The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-10-25
REPORT OF THE viewers
Subject Of Able Arguments Made to
the Court Yesterday.
GOT BACK At ATTORNEY BURNS
Tie Paid Costs before Taking an Appeal
by Means Of Check and He Is
Called to Task for
So Doing.

argument was heard yesterday
morning on the exceptions to the report
of Viewers f.. j. McNally. Robert
Hagg and August Schimpff, OF the
Seventeenth sewer district. Major E.v-
erett Warren represented the Lacka-
wanna Iron and Coal company and the
Lackawanna Iron and Steel company,
and City Solicitor j. II. Torrey argued
to sustain the report
The Iron and Coal company exceptS
because, as alleged, the assessment
levied by the viewers Is for property
owned by the company In the Twelfth
and Nineteenth wards. where the pro-
posed sewer will not abut. This Is the
reason given by the Steel company,
supplemented with a copy of the or
dinance creating the sewer district.
The both companies. as Major Warren
argued. maintain that only property
that abuts on the sewer should be as
sessed The Supreme court so con-
strued the act of 1891. under which the
viewers We're appointed. The argu-
ment specified that the land OF the
companies affected by the assessment
consists of fourteen acres of farm and
mountain land. that in no way can be
helped by the sewer, or any branches
of it,
Decision win BE OF importance.
Mr.. Torrey argued that the decision
of the court will be one of vital impor-
lance to the city. He said that the or
dnance creating the district was draft
ed under the act of 1889, which pro-
vides that all property In the district
Is subject to the sewer assessment.
4 good deal OF amusement was en-
toyed ait the expense Of Attorney I. r..
Burns. The case of Hopkins & Roberts
against Arthur Frothingham. rule to
restore records. came up for argu-
ment. The plaintiffs were represented
by Attorneys Burns and Frank T..
Okell. Attorney NJ. w. Lowry repre-
sented Mr., rockingham. Hopkins &
Roberts brought a suit against Mr..
Frothingham for n large amount OF
money. 1t was heard before arbitra-
tors and the award was against the
plaintiffs. but on the last day of the
twenty days allowed by law in which
an appeal can be taken, Mr.. Okell went
to the office eofsProthonotary Pryor and
paid the costs by check, and took out
rule for an appeal
Along with other argument. Mr..
Lowry contended that the plaintiffs
We're not entitled to be heard on the APP
peal as the costs had not been paid in
cash. hut by check. and Mr.. Lowry dl-
rected the attention of the court to the
fact that Mr.. Burns. of plaintiffs coun-
sci, has a case against Attorney Cor
nellus Smith i'm which the costs were
paid by check Mr. Burns perennial
smile was not disturbed by the tests
of his brethren at the bar.
Talking About the Fashions.
The argument for a new trial in the
case of the Universal Fashion com.
pany. of New York. against John II
Ladwig, proprietor of the Fourteen,
store. was made by Attorney C. W
Dawson. The jury found a verdict OF
81 for the Fashion company, although
the suit was brought for $500, and
Judge Gunster instructed the jury tc
] find for the full amount OF the claim ir
case they found at all for the plaintiff
Mr., Dawson argued for a new trla
and Attorney C. II. Soper opposed the
granting of a rehearing of the case.
The objections of Mr. Soper were thai
! the fashion patterns furnished by the
company to Mr.. Ladwig were of the
style of revolutionary days and not VI
to date as per agreement. He did nj
think that It would be fair II a person
ordered horse to get a mule or If one
ordered race horse to get an ole
plug
| The rule to set aside traverses in tho
case of the commonwealth agains
| Benjamin s. Clark was argued ant
made absolute.