The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-12-15
MANY CASES HEARD
In ARGUMENT COURT
Suit Of Gas and Water Company Against
Northern Coal and irCn Co. Rehashed.
STRIP OF LAND IS IN DISPUTE
Iron Company Wanted to Seize II
Under the Right OF Eminent DO.
neutrality-suspicious. to the Report Of
the Master Who Considered the
Case wee Argued dYcstcrdny..Many
Cases Continued ana Settled.

y week Ol argument court WIS beSuii
yesterday morning in the Federal
building, with President Judge II. w.
Archibald. Judge +. w. Gunster and
Judge n. NJ. Edwards on the bench
The long standing case of the Scran-
ton Gas and Water company against
the Northern Coal and Iron company or
the Delaware and Hudson Canal COM
pany. was the most important OF the
many eases argued. The suit was COM
menced over six years ago, when the
railroad company attempted to seize by
right of eminent domain Il 4GXi50 foot
striD of land for the purpose of WIDEN
ing its right OF way alongside the gas
house. The Gas and Water company
protested against the seizure alleging
that it needed the lard itself more than
did the railroad company. An injunc-
tloE was secured restraining the rail
road company from entering upon pos
session Of the land. The matter was
taken to the supreme court and there
the injunction was continued until the
case could be tried before a master.
Judge Bennett. OF Wilkes Barre. then
an attorney. was appointed master. He
decided that the railroad company
should have II feet of the STRIP. Yes
terdays' arguments We're on exceptions
to the masters rcnort. Justice Alfred
Hand appeared for the gas and water
company and Attorney Bedford. OF
Wilkes Parre, for the railroad COM
pany. one of the arguments of the
plaintiff was that the railroad company
could overcome tn" difficulty which
cunfronts it Ly tunne!ng under the
city.
THE DIMMICK CASE.
Arguments We're also made i'm the case
of j. q. Dimmick and others against
the Delaware, l.ackaWaEna and West
crn Isailroad company. j. w. Brown
ing and $. B. Price We're the attorneys
for the plaintiff and Warren 4 Knapp
for the defendant. The proceedings
are IL Compel the railroad company tn
open and maintain g crossing over its
tracks to connect the two sections Of
the plot recently laid out near the
Cayuga cOlliery by the plaintiffs.
Other cases argued were Margaret
Lynott against Gilmore 4 Duffy, de-
murrcr; Julia COnley and Others
against the Wilkes Earre and Scranton
Railway company. rule to set aside
sberiff's return; City of Scranton
against C. A. Wells estate. to strike
off lien: SDruks Bros. against T.. Bar
rett, rule to amend deed.
The following cases We're continued:
Sarah NJ. Wall against ID. T. Stone
ana Others, exceptions to the renort of
referee; Spruks Brothers against T..
Barrett and others, rule to arIend a
deed: John Raub against w. a. PIER
son. rule t. take off satisfa tion of a
judgment: the exceptions to the report
of viewers i'm the matter of the grading
of New street: Marcclla Maxwell, rule
for security for costs; Dawson & Co.
hen against the Titusvile Elastic Chair
company. examination of alderman's
court record; T.. Beech and others
against Yoos & Doyle, same kind OF
suit; \. b. Swartz against Eva Swartz.
in divorce: f.. \. Fitzsinmons against
j. G.. Bush & Son. examination of al
dermans' court record; a. c. Nettleton
against Worden x Deyo and others,
rule To Open judgment. Henry Hattin
against II. II. Rockafeler and others,
rule I" open Judgment a. s. Washburn
against j. i. Lark, rule to open judg-
ment: Matthias Sowka against MARCEL
lus Suyter, rule for new trial.