The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-07-08

ActlOh OF the Judges--Other Mat
ters in Argument Court.
When the case of Joseph Fellows
against John Stanley Smith and his
father, Cornelius Smith, was called in
argument court yesterday the follow
ing plea was handed up as part OF
the files in the case:
Now, July Z, 1897, Cornelius Smith, one
of the above named defendants, plead TO
the jurisdiction of the court:
/. That the said Cornelius Smith al de-
fendant IN this suit las the right to be
heard, in court, in his defense, not as an
attorney, but as party to the said suit.
2 That the said Cornelius Smith, OH
the 9Th day of July, 1897 presented in
open court, Hons. r. w. Archibald, +. W.
Gunster and II. NJ. Edwards, presiding, an
application to have the case certified to
the president judge residing nearest the
place of trial, who is disinterested, said
application being as follows to witt
Joseph Fellows VS.. Cornelius Smith and
John Stanley Smith. In the court of COM
mon pleas of Lackawanna county, sitting
in equity. No II, May term, 1897. Corne-
lius Smith being sworn says: That he is
one of the defendants in the above suit
That between the affiant and the judges
who by law are required to try the above
case there is, and has been for many
years, trouble of a serious nature out of
which has grown Ill feeling between the
said judges and the attant. That the
said i'll feelings are of so strong a nature
that the said judges and the afiiant are
not now and for long time have not
been on speaking terms. That by reason
of the said trouble the afiiant has reasons
for believing and does believe, that the
said judges are strongly prejudiced
against him, and that he cannot obtain a
fair and impartial trial Of the case be-
fore the said judges. He therefore re-
spectfully prays the court to certify the
said case for trial to the president judge
residing nearest the place of trial, who is
disinterested. That this application is
not made for the purpose of delay, but
made in good faith for the cause above
stated. Cornelius Smith
REFUSED TO CONSIDER.
8. That the said judges were in duty
bound to receive, consider and determine
the said application, yet Notwithstanding
the said judges then and there refused to
receive consider or determine the said ap-
plication to have the case certified as
aforesaid
L. That by reason of long standing and
still existing troubles, out of which have
grown i'll feelings of the most intense ma
ture between the said judges and the said
Cornelius Smith, the said judges were dis
qualified to try the case for the reason
(thaO they are not impartial, unpreju-
diced and Indifferent judges with re-
spect to matters involving the interests
of said Cornelius Smith, which said mat
ters are in issue in this suit.
Cornelius Smith, Defendant.
Judge Archibald and Judge Gunster
characterized the contents of the paper
as sCandalous and untrue and Judge
Archibald directed it to be stricken from
the records, one reason for this action
being that the plea was not printed, as
required by law. The following decree
was then handed down:
Joseph Fellows vs.. Cornelius Smith and
j. G. Smith, in equity:
This case having come on to be heard
on demurrer to the plaintiffs bill, and
having been duly argued by counsel, f.
c. Newcomb, esq., for the plaintiff, and
James Mahon, esq, for the defendants
upon due consideration thereof the said
demurrer Is ovefruled and thereupon the
said defendants arc required to make an
swer to the said bill within fifteen days.
BY the Court.
HISTORY OF CASE.
The case is the one reviewed at
length in The Tribune of May 20. Eel
lows engaged Smith to assist HIM in
recovering siXty-one acres of land, on
the West mountain, agreeing to give
him one-half of the property for his
services and for some money advanced.
Later when Fellows became poverty
stricken he accepted an offer from
Smith by which he was to receive a
small monthly allowance and the priv
ilege of sleeping in Smiths Office in
consideration of his deciding a quarter
of the remaining one-half of the land
to John Stanley Smith.
When Fellows went to sign the deed
he found 1t was for one-half instead of
ore-quarter of the remaining land but
as he was in the most distressed cir
cumstances he accepted the changed
Offer When some time later the
chances of ever recovering the prop
erty looked somewhat gloomy Smith
told Fellows he would not keep to the
agreement any longer and promised
to destroy the deed of j. S. Smith.
Fellows eventually won his suit and
was surprised to find the deed to
Smiths son duly recorded. He now
brings suit to compel the Smiths to
reconvey this land.
OTHER CASES HEARD.
Other cases were disposed OF as fol-
lows:
Judgment affirmed - Borough of
Blakely against Il. S. Peck and others,
j. b. Winslow & Co. against Mrs.
Patrick Burke, Harity SulIena against
William Green.
Judgment reversed--JOseph Checkura
against George Checkura, James Scott
against James Ready and others,
James Sule and others against the
county of Lackawanna, Frank Span
genburg against James Fairy and wife,
William Bright against Frank Webster
and Anna Webster, Mamie O'Hala
against w, w. Martin and others.
Argued-John Aswell against e. II.
Kresge, Thomas Mcdonald against
Michael Manley, Merriman & Merri-
man against William Kinback, T.. Z.
Nettletcn against Josiah ID. Caryl.
The divorce case of Cecilia X. Hayes
against John ]. Hayes was submitted.
In the case of Conrad Vernoy against
John and James Drake. and Catherine
MCCfill against Jamps Garioan tha N,rits,