The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-01-29
THE ARGUMENT LIST.
Cases That VIII be Heard During Week
Beginning Feb. ~,

Cases That VIII be Heard During Week
Beginning Feb. ~,
The argument list made up for the
coming week Of argument court was
completed yesterday and is as follows:
Monday. Feb. II.
NJ. A. Mccarthy. VS.. Martin Scanlan;
rule TO open Judgement.
NJ. y. Mccarthy, VS.. Martin Scanlan
rule to open judgement.
l.; {; smith. VS.. Ringold Depuy; rule to
Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, VS.. A.
Ferdinando; rule to reduce Judgment.
Ira I. Barber vs.. Scranton Glass COM
pany; rule for new trial.
Ambrose Mulley VS.. G. H. Shoemaker;
b. +. Kilam, executor, VS.. S. Cobb;
rule for new trial.
Jacob Harris vs.. George c. Wilson;
In. re. grading OF Swetland street; rule
to strike off judgments
Borough OF Blakely VS.. Delaware and
HUDSON Csnal company; reargument.
Ihomas Conroy VS.. Della Wagner, ct. AL;
rule for new trial.
Soweil Domeico VS.. Iron City Mutual
Fire Insurance company; rule for new
{, A. sisk VS.. c. d, Wall; rule to set
John W. Raub, VS.. W. a. Pearson; rule
to take off satisfaction.
Charles keib VS.. Scranton Traction COM
pany: exceptions TO report of referee.
W. l.. Belts VS.. Scranton Base Ball as
sociation: exceptions to report of referee.
Morris and Essex Mutual Coal company
VS.. Delaware l.ackawanna and Western
Railroad company; rule for new trial.
Frank NJ. Chase VS.. Emma G. Chase;
rule for decree in divorce.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex, rel.
Board of Health of Olyphant VS.. Borough
Council: exception to answer.
Canal company; exceptions to answer.
Tuesday. Feb. 10.
Jennie l.. Chromes vs.. John Z. Chromes;
rule for decree in divorce.
Amelia tnderhill vs.. A. underhill; rule
for decree in divorce.
Sarah Fritz vs. William Fritz; rule for
decree In divorce.
NJ. Gehreh VS.. Frederick Cramer; cer-
tiorari.
; u. Il. Replogle VS.. John ]. Fahey; rule
to reduce attorneys commission.
ID. Il. ReplOgle VS.. John j. Fahey; rule
to reduce attorneys commission.
In re-, adoption of Anthony Seeger; rule
for decree.
w. +. Connell & Son vs.. Mary Zeidler;
Samuel Nichols vs.. p. Nichols; rule for
decree in divorce.
II. S. Bolton w. n. C. Bolton: rule for
decree in divorce.
$. d. Kingsley VS.. Mines e. Felts; rule
for Judgment.
Scranton Packing company VS.. Joseph
Ross; rule to dissolve attachment.
to dissolve attachment
b. Rosenfeld VS.. Peter Valrah; rule to
open Judgment.
Elsie Coggins VS.. T.. J. Coggins; rule for
decree In divorce.
j. Solomon & Son VS.. b. Lehman & Co.;
Co.: rule to dissolve attachment.
Snedecker & Boynton VS.. Il. Lehman &
rule TO dissolve attachment.
In lknx n 4 OH p M rlrIn
TO dissolve attachment
Lewis & Benedict VS.. b. Lehman & Co.;
rule to dissolve attachment.
j. Shoemenan & Co. VS., B. Lehman &
Co.; rule to dissolve attachment.
a. Lessee vs.. B. Lehman e. Co.; rule
to dissolve attachment
Raymond Hawks & Co. VS.. B. Leman G.
Co; rule to dissolve attachment.
s. Wilson e. Co. VS.. B. Lehman & Co.;
rule to dissolve attachment.
DaniZer Bros. vs. b. Lehman & Co.; rule
to- dissolve attachment.
Townsend W. Knowles vs.. Mary Jacobs;
b. j. Cook & Sons VS.. T. ]. Conway: rule
for judgment
r. COwles & Co. VS.. +. Moses; rule to
dissolve attachment
Wednesday. Feb. 10.
II. Gallagher VS.. James Clarke; GER
John B, Van Kleeck VS.. II. Harbinger;
j. i. Hess VS.. G. W. Hinckley; cer-
ti0rari
Lackawanna Valley Rapid Transit COM
pany vs.. II. q. Lee; certiorari.
Mrs j. l.. PidgeOn VS.. j. Dwyer: GER
tiorari.
Ferguson & Doyle VS.. 7. NJ. Burke; rule
TO open Judgment.
Universal Fashion company vs.. John II.
Ladwig; rule for security;
Al. o. Webster vs.. T.. J. Widmayer; rule
for Judgment.
Isaac Swope & Co. VS.. q. G.. N. Turn
quest: rule to dissolve attachment,
l.. T.. Tennant VS.. William Richmond,
It. al: demurrer.
J. solomon & Co. VS.. II. Driesen: rule
10 dissolve attachment.
L. KAUFMAN < Co. VS.. II. DR., r,esen; rule
10 dissolve attachment.
A. lessee VS.. II. Driesen: rule to dis
solve attachment.
Alexander Bros vs.. II. Driesen; rule to
dissolve attachment.
3. Wilson vs. ii. Driesen; rule to dis
solve attachment.
DanZiger Bros. VS.. II. Driesen; rule to
dissolve attachment.
s. j. Nathan & Co. vs.. II. Driesen; rule
to dissolve attachment.
Sigmund & GOldley VS.. II. Driesen; rule
TO dissolve attachment
John c. Jennings VS.. Lehigh Valley Rail-
road company: rule for change OF venue.
John Horn VS.. Alathilda Horn; rule for
John p. Burke VS.. Bridget Atkinson;
rule to strike Off lien.
James r. Dainty VS.. c. Chamberlain;
city of Scranton VS.. Ambrose Mulley,
william Moore. X. i. Gibbons, et al;
rule to strike Off appeals.
Winton Coal company VS.. Pancoast Coal
rule for new trial.
A. r.. Philo VS. Joseph Halderman; rule
FOR new trial.