The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-01-17
HENNE Case Was ARGUED
Scranton Traction Company Is the
Appellant.
MAS MRS. HENNE NEGLIGENT ?
Superior Cont Asked to Reverse the
Lower Court Finding-Apn0lIcc's Child
Was Killed by. Street Car
on W est Laekawanha Avenue.

In superior court yesterday the first
argument was in the case of Albert
Henne against the Scranton Traction
company. The company is the appel
liant and was represented by eX-Judge
Jessup and Attorney Horace f. Hand.
Attorney Joseph O'Brien argued for the
appellee.
On June 25, 1891. Albert Henne's little
girl was killed by street car on West
Lackawanna avenue near Seventh
street. and in a suit for damages after
ward brought, the plaintiff recovered
S175. The court below refused to grant
a non-suit on motion of the defendants s
attorneys. They allege that Mrs. Henne
was guilty of contributory negligence
qnd therefore could not expect dam
ages.
Mr.. OBrien i'm his argument dwelt
upon Mrs. Henne's negligence. He said
II would be IA harsh rule to expect her
during the hot weather in thickly
settled district to close up the windows
and doors as a preventive in case
child felt inclined to wander out. Judge
Jessup in reply stated that it had been
proved at the trial that Mrs. Henne had
a servant to look after the children and
her sister was in the house with her. and
from all the circumstances her nesli-
gence was conclusively shown.
Case Of Souers Against NOwcy.
A case that has been gravitating up
and down for a long time I'm the local
courts was next argued. 1t was the
action of Peter Somers against John
Howey Attorney W. $. Hulsiander
appeared for the appellant and Attor
ney j. l.. Burr for the appellee. Howey
had been drawing pension from the
government and he became involved
and owed some money to SomerS, who
obtained Judgment and levied upon
Howey's property. The defense was set
up that pension money purchased 1t
and such is exempt from sheriff'S SeiZ
ure. The lower court held that there
was no merit in that contention. The
superior court will now settle the ques-
ton.
In the matter Of the case of Oscar
Misselwitz; of Philadelphia, an alleged
lunatic argument was made by Attor-
ney Joseph l.. Hull for the appellants:
the appellee's attorney, Mr.. Terry. of
Philadelphia. was not present to make
an argument but he sent In his paper
book. Oscar Misselwitz, the alleged
lunatic, was resident of Philadelphia
for over thirty years, living with his
wife until some time during the summer
of 1895, when by reason of certain do
nestle difficulties she left home and not
withstandsng repeated requests refused
to live with him.
secured the appointment of a commits
sion to inquire into the sanity of Mis-
selwitz and later she presented another
petition to the common pleas court or
Philadelphia reciting that on November
4 certain real estate was sold by the
sheriff to satisfy Judgment against
her husband. and that there was a bal
ance in the hands of the sheriff over and
above the judgment The court ap-
pointed a receiver and from this order
and decree the appeal has been taken
by Matthias Seddinger and c. Wesley
Ruffell. who are the attorneys i'm fact
for Misselwitz,
Appeal OF John $. IIoffar.
The next argument was on the appeal
of John s. Hoffar. an execution creditor,
from the definitive decree of the court
of common pleas of Wyoming county.
in the matter of the distribution of the
funds arising fom the sheriffs sale Of
the personal property of ID. w. Pearson,
and in making distribution of the said
funds. The appellant was represented
by Attorneys f.. ]. Mullen and Rush
J. Thompson. The attorney for the ap-
pellee was J. w. Patt.
For some time prior to February l.,
1884, Pearson was engaged in numbering
an peeling bark in Forkston town.
ship Wyoming county, and he had con-
Pearson had contracts with other en-
ployes, but about February 1, 1894, judg-
ments were obtained against him and
his personal property was sold out,
bringing 81. COG. O5. Prior to sale claims
for wages were presented to the sheriff
and payment of the same demanded
from the proceeds of the sale on the
ground that wages were preferred claims
under the provisions Of the several acts
of assembly. Among these claims was
one to the amount of 1925 to the Mil
helm brothers.
The proceeds of the sale were referred
to an auditor who rejected the claims.
because they We're presented by men
who did not come in under the statute
as laborers. The question now raised is
whether contractor who does not
work himself but employs others. can
present his claim under the act pre-
ferring wage claims.
Judge Rice handed down an order ap-
pointing Monday, Feb. II. as the date
for the opening of the Superior court
at Williamsport