The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-11-17

One of the hardest fought cases that
the present term of common pleas court
has witnessed is that OF Nj. a. McCar-
thy, of Ashley, against Margaret Scan
lon, administrators of the estate OF
Martin Scanlon, deceased, which was
called for trial before Judge Archibald
i'm the Federal court room yesterday
morning. O'Brien & Kelly represen;
the plaintiff, and Attorneys Nj. i. cav
ley, f. J. Fitzsimmons and Watson Il
Zimmerman. the defense. At adjourn
ment yesterday the case was only fair
ly started owing to the constant
wrangling of the attorneys. An OTTER
was insisted upon in almost every IN
stance when a new witness was called
The action is to recover $1,000 prin-
cipal and interest on judgment note
which Martin Scanion gave NJ. a. Me
Carthy. July 13, 1883. The plaintiff al
leges that it was given in considera-
ton of cash value. The defendant al
lcses that there was no consideration,
and that consequently it is not binding
This is the second trial of the case
A verdict was given for the piaintiif
i'm the former trial but the supreme
court when appealed revoked the YER
diet and ordered a new trial. In the
first trial the plaintiffs attorneys
brought out on CrosS-eXamination that
the note was given to protect Mr..
Scanlon against man named Ryan
who was suing him for $4,000 damages
Judge Gunster, the defendants alleged
before the supreme court, charged the
Jury to the effect that the defense di-
rectly admitted this intention of fraud
while il was. they argued. only brought
out ON cross-examinatiOn. This is sup
posed to be one of the principal rea-
sons for the new trial.
Yesterday the plaintlfs attorneys
tried to reintroduce this matter of
fraud but Notwithstanding two hours
of the closest questioning by Mr.. Kelly,
of Mrs. Scanlon, it was not success
full.
When the case. which was first ON
the list, was called. Colonel Fitzsim
mons moved for continuance but 1t
was denied. The plaintiffs only wit
ness i'm chief was Hon t. V. Powder
ly. who Identified the signature on the
note as that of Mr.. Scanlon.
THEORY OF THE DEFENSE.
Mr.. Cawley opened for the defense
outlining in clear and concise way
what they proposed to show, which in
brief was that there was no conSidera-
ton whatever. 1t was barely intimat-
ed that the note was given to protect
Mr.. Scanlon as noted above and to de"
feat the claim of the dover interest Of
his wife. 1t was also averred that Mr.
Mccarthy never made demand for the
payment of the note until after Mr..
Scanlon's death. although the time ON
the note had expired, several years
previous to his decease.
Mrs. Scanlon, the defendant, when
called to the stand after the dinner
recess. testified to several conversa-
tions with Mr.. Mccarthy, during which
he told her that there was no cOnsid-
Grafton on the note in question or the
others on record in court, and not to
worry about them. one Of these con-
versations was in her room. while she
was ill., following the birth of her
child i'm 1889. Another occurred on q
street in Wilkes Barre. The defendant
with Mr.. Scanlon were On their way
to Ashley to secure the note. They
encountered Mr.. Mccarthy driving to-
wards the central part of the town,
and she impartuned him to go back
with them that they might get the note.
He pleaded pressing business and said
it would be impossible for him to turn
back, but assured Mrs. ScanlOn again
that she should not worry. that. as
her husband and he had told her. there
that there would never be any bother
about themN He also chided her for
continually worrying her husband
about the notes and for doubling their
statements.
Mr.. Kelly tried to bring out what the
notes were given for, if there had been
no valuable consideration, but Mrs.
Scanlon answered that she had never
heard, did not know. and at the best
could Cnly guess. AS a guess does not
court on the witness stand, Mr. Kelly.
not little perturbed, allowed her to
quit the stand without insisting on
finding out what her guess might be.
SHE HEARD 1T ALSO.
Anna Quinnan. Mrs. Scanlons daugh-
ter by her first husband, who lived at
the Scanlon home for time, was next
called. She testified to having over
heard the conversation which Mrs.
Scanlon alleged took place in her sick
room. Mr.. Mccarthy, she said, told
Mrs. Scanlon that there was nothing
given for the notes, and not to he
botherng her head about them. Mrs.
Mary Ann Tobin, who worked i'm the
capacity of a household servant at the
Scanlon residence in 1889. swOre she
saw Mr.. Mccarthy there and heard Il
conversation between MN and Mrs.
Scanlon concerning notes. She was
ironing at the time and only accident
ally heard the talk. and as it did not
concern her she did not pay anything
more than casual attention to it.
Here the defense rested and Mr.. Nc
Carthy being called in rebuttal. went
on the stand and swore that he not
only did not have the conversations
which Mrs. Scanlon and the other wit
riesses testified to. but positively af-
firmed that he was never inside Martin
Scanlon's house after his marriage to
the defendant, and that he never met
Mrs. Scanlon in Wilkes Barre or Ash
ley, except once on a Sunday. when
she came down to see him in company
with a Mrs. Martin to try to induce
him to have Mr.. Scanlon sign over his
property to her. arguing that she could
managed better than her husband. who
was getting careless regarding his
business affairs. He also testified that
he loaned money at various times to
Mr.. Scanlon and that the note i'm uues-
tiOn was given him for the considera.
tion of 81 600 cash He and Mr. S,,n