The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-10-28


cases were gone over.
one of them, too, was a rather i'm
portant one. 1t was the case, or rath-
er cases, of the Griffin Lake Fishing
association against John Hernehan,
Patrick Davitt, Michae Hernehan.
Michael Costello and Patrick Moran.
The defendants were last summer ar
rested for fishing in Griffin lake, which
is now controlled by private corpor-
alton, the plaintiff in question, and up
on being arranged before Justice of the
Peace Lamoroaux, of Scott, were fined
800 each under the act of 1873. Their
attorney, Hon. j. c. Vaughan, took a
certiorari and on this the cases came
up yesterday.
NOsburg & Dawson, attorneys for the
plaintiff, moved to Quash the certiorari
alleging that it had not been taken un-
til after the prescribed twenty days
had elapsed. Senator Vaughan admit
ted that this assertion was true but
held that the offense was a criminal
one and hence the twenty day limit
does not hold. The plaintiffs attorneys
contended that it was not a criminal,
but civil offense and on this point
court will decide the case. This is a
new question and it's decision will es-
tablish precedent. If it is decided
that an action for the recovery of a
penalty is a criminal proceeding, then
the defendants win and vice versa.
MR.. sOPERs WOES.
Mr. Soper varied the monotony of a
very dry afternoon with an interesting
recital of an experience he had with
"Simms or SimOns or some such
Squire" up back of LaPlume some
twenty or twenty-five miles. Mr.. Soper
ii appears was attorney for one
Charles Robinson, Of this city, who
bought a COW from one G. w Dean, of
La Plume. The COW was not what it
was represented to be and it was re-
turned and suit instituted to recover
the purchase money, $5i. Then, aC-
cording to Mr.. SOper's version, the de-
fendant in ord-r to have an offset
brought suit against Dean for So, insti-
tuting the proceedings in the office OF
the aforementioned squire and making
the summons returnable on Saturday
night between 6 and o'clock.
To reach the office of the La Plume
Squire on Saturday night to defend a
$G civil suit is not an inviting task.
1t is impossible to get out of the town
by train at night and as there are no
Sunday trains the prospect of staying
there until Monday was presented to
Mr.. Soper, his client and his witness
| all of which would cost s., and up
! wards. However if the willy defend
| ant thought to thus secure judgment
! by default he reckoned without the
/ indominitable Mr.. Soper for at the APP
/ pointed hour band wagon drove up
| to the door of the 'squire's office and
| from out thereof filed the attorney, the
/ defendant and his dozen or more wit
! nesses. The case was heard and the
| La Plume man won, being aided in
| winning, so Mr.. Soper declares, by the
| remarkable respect the squire evnced
! for the suggestions of the plaintiffs at
| torney, r. II. Holgate.
REQUEST NOT GRANTED.
Mr.. Soper certioraried Il
! yesterday argued for a rule to take
! depositions that he might show to the
court how justice is ladled out in the
northern end of this county. The court
was much amused at Mr.. Soper's tale
| Of woe but could not see it's way clear
! to grant his request.
Papers in the following divorce cases
were handed up: j. NJ. Herbert against
| II. Herbert, II. d. Trurlpiece against
| II. Trurlpiece, c. Conrad against J.
| Conrad, NJ. T.. Butts against Chester
| NJ. Butts A. L. Monk against Thomas
| Monk, Louisa Arnold against C. +. Ar
| mold.
Judgment was reversed in the follow
| ing cases: y. NJ. Price and others
| against Thomas Thomas, Bridget Rich
! ards against William Carroll and 9TH
| ers, Suravitz Vlnklestein against
! Jacob Daniels, Hunter & Gerlen against
| j. J.. Grifths, Mary Shaw against the
| United States Industrial Insurance
| company c. o. Decker against Rich
| ard Bradley, Amos Robinson against
| George Clark, Edward Malchuck
against Andrew Wallagher Common
! w.alth against May Poliskey and 9TH
ers, Patrick Gavin against j. Shin
| caumtch
The rule for a new trial was dis
| charged in the cases of S. ]. Kinds
| and w, T. Barnes against the Bonita
| Plate Glass company. In the cases of
| 5, d. Stroh against Jacob Weinfeht &
| Co, rule to vacate judgment, and in
| the case Of G. w. Stanton against
William Austin and p. II. Durkin, rule
to set aside attachment, court made
the rules absolute.
ACTION IN OTHER CASES.
a nol-pros was entered in the fol-
| lowing certiorari cases: Thomas Lo-
| gan against NJ. d. Lewis, August
! Gearhart against Samuel Davis. James
Holden against James Stein, Sam Nee
I'll against Anthony Dickman and 9TH
ers, James Ruane against Patrick
| Walsh and others, Mike McClosken
against John Sharack, William Hobby
against Tony Magniotta.
Other cases which were argued and
IN which court took the papers for
further consideration were: John w.
Jones against Lille NJ, Mackey and
others, rule for a new trial and rule
Tor Judgment; j. A. Ducksburg against
hate Ducksburg, rule to pay out funds
IN COURT I. 4. Dolph against NJ. L.
DAILY, administrators. certiorari; Casey
q Kelly Brewing company against A.
kilmartin, certiorari; William Hobby
against Salvatore Margota and 9TH
ers, certlorari; commonwealth against