The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-02-20
CANNON CASE Is
AGAIN In COURT
Effort TO Secure the Release OF a Pecu-
liar Character.
SOME FUN OVER ATTORNEYS FEES
Mr.. Dawson as Auditor Cut Down Mr..
Duggan's Fees from S125 to $50 and
Charged $40 for the Job--Mr. Dug
gan Pays His Respects to Mr.. Daw-
son as Only the Ex-Burgess Can.
The Hitchcock Case Argued.

Arguments for new trial were yes
terday made in the famous case of
James Cannon against Thomas Rice
and others. Judges GunSter and Ed
wards, only, sat in the case, Judge
Archibald retiring because he is a wit
ness. The plaintiff was represented by
Attorney l. H. Burns, Richard Busteed,
jr., and John f. Scragg and the defend
ants by Attorneys Thomas f. Wells
and c. r. Pitcher.
While the proceedings are for new
trial the main effort of the attorneys
is to secure the release of Cannon, with
out compromising their stubborn client
or the court. The contention of the
plaintiff is that the verdict, which
brought about Gannon's imprisonment
for contempt was obtained by fraud or
mistake and therefore anything conse
quent urlon it must fall.
They strove to show that Cannon new
er consented directly or through his at
torneys that the action in the trial of the
case in 1887 should be amicable eject
ment or that a conditional or moulded
verdict should be found, but that he
and they understood that it was a
common law ejectment.
Mr.. Busteed presented the affidavits
Ol IGDllDn anu lle dllOIHtyS III llle CASE
denying any agreement to conditional
verdict. Mr.. Burns pleaded that some
thing should be done to effect Gannon's
release, holding that the law never in
tended that a man should be punished
SO severely for simply refusing to do
what his conscience tells him would
be a great wrong.
Messrs. Wells and Pitcher argued
acr1i i'm ct
the form under which the case was
tried was regular and agreed to by the
parties in action.
From this grave and serious case
court next passed to one that was hu-
morous from beginning to end. 1t was
an orphans court matter in which the
estate of Alexander Doake, deceased,
was the point about which the action
revolved. Attorney Y. j. Duggan did
some work for the estate and charged
up 1925 for fees and expenses. The lien
creditors of the estate excepted to the
size of the bill and upon bringing the
matter to court Attorney G. w. Dawson
was appointed auditor to adjudicate the
differences. He cut Mr.. Duggan's fees
down to $50 and fixed his own compen-
sation for this labor at $40, all of which
saved the estate the vast sum of SO.
Mr. Duggan filed exceptions to the re-
port, protesting against the cut in his
own fee and avowing that Mr.. Daw
sons fee was exhorbitant. Mr.. Daw
sons report was funny, to say the
least, but it wasn't circumstance as II
laugh proVoker to the argument made
against by the willy ex-burgess of
Bucktown.
The way in which he hurled his shafts
of irony, satire and ridicule at Mr..
Dawson and his report and also against
Attorney c. +. Bohan, of Pittston, who
argued for the lien creditors, kept the
court and all the listeners in an almost
continuous roar of laughter.
The ground upon which he built up
his argument was that he objected to
having his fees regulated according to
the ideas of fees held by bucolic attor-
neys from Pittston or by Mr.. Dawson
to whom he also paid some undesirable
compliments.
The case of the Standard Life Acct
dent Insurance company, of Detroit
Mich, against its agent, Arthur
Hitchcock, was argued by Major War
ren, representing the company, and
Mr. Scragg as counsel for Mr.. Hitch
cock. The company claims that the
agent Is Bullly VI llleSdlly
$7O5.5O and has instituted proceedings
against him. Mr.. Hitchcock puts in
an offset of $500 for office rent, fees for
settling cases and commissions or re-
neWals.
Three rules were argued. The first
was a rule for judgment on account
of the insufficiency of the affidavit of
defense. The second was for a bill
,,f NIT, tlaf HI irI it,
for costs, the latter two being contend
ed for by the defense.
The contested elections from the Sec
ond ward of Dickson City We're argued
by eX-Judge Stanton for the contest
ants and Mr.. O'Brien for the respond
ent. The election of which the contests
arise was held in the spring of 1896. The
entire Citizens ticket was elected by
small majoritles over the Republican
ticket. NJ f. Fadden, councilman for