The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-02-19
TRANSACTION OF THE
LATE JUDGE HANDLEY
II is a Subject Of a Dispute Now Before
Court.
SHARP PRACTICES ARE ALLEGED
The Equity Improvement Company of
Winchester, Va, and the Eqnity
Improvement Company of Scranton
Are Fighting a Case Stated Arising
from the Sale of the Handley Block
--Other Matters in Argument Court.


Whether or not the late Judge John
Handley was guilty of sharp practices
to put it mildly-in his dealings with
the Equity Improvement company of
Winchester, Va is a question that was
submitted to the local court yesterday.
The matter was presented in the form
of a case stated between the Equity
Improvement company of Scranton and
the Equity Improvement company of
Winchester, with Messrs. Palmer and
Amerman as attorneys for the local
company, the plaintiff and Attorney
John f. Williams, of Winchester, repre-
senting the Virginia corporation, the
defendant. Mr.. Amerman argued the
case for his side. Mr.. Williams pre-
sented the defendants cause in an elab-
crate brief, forwarded by mail.
The Handley block corner of Wyom-
ing avenue and Spruce street gives rise
to the contention The Equity Improve
ment of Winchester, in which Judge
Ilandley owned five-sxths of the stock
and of which he was president, bought
this property for $225,OO0 The concern
became impoverished and at Judge
Handleys suggestion concluded to dis
pose of the property in order to liquid
ate it's Indebtedness. At a meeting of
the directors the judge was authorized
to sell the property for twenty-five per
cent. less than was paid for it. Soon
after this Judge Handley went to Win
chester and informed the company
there that he had sold the property
for the price they had fixed, $l6S, 750
to the Equity Improvement company
of Scranton, under certain conditions
contained in bond, which bond how
ever he did not produce, averring that
he had not brought it along with him.
The Virginia company by resolution
| ratified the sale, without the precau-
| tion of informing itself of the condi-
| tions of the bond, relying, as is stated
| in the brief, upon Judge Handley's in
| tegrity and the presumption that he
would not do anything to injure the
interests of a company in which he was
| almost the sole owner.
BOND NOT SATISFACTORY.
After Judge Handleys death his exec
| utors came across the bond and pro-
| ceeded to enforce a compliance with it's
provisions. These provisions We're to
the minds of the Winchester people, un-
fair and inequitable and for this reason
y
was himself the Equity Improvement
| company of Scranton, being president
and owning all but four shares of stock,
they refused to accept the provisions of
the drastic bond and hence the suit.
In nutshell the Winchester people
claim that Judge Handley sold a prop
erty for a company in which he held
| fiVe-siXths of the stock to a company
| in which he held all the stock and by
making the terms of the sale immeas-
| urably favorable to the latter COM
pany hurt himself little that he might
benefit himself much. The brief does
not mince words but openly AYERS that
| while acting in the capacity of double
| fiduciary he was guilty of fraud and
| deceit.
The answer made by Mr. Amermar
to these allegations is that the compan!
| had every opportunity of acquaintins
itself with the terms of the bond before
it ratified the sale; that after it die
learn of the bonds provisions it tool
no steps to repudiate the sale or oh
ject to the terms and that the objec
tions offered now are solely for the pur
pose of continuing their enjoyment o
the proceeds of the sale without livins
up to the agreement under which th
sale was made.
The amount over which the disput
arises is $4,000, represented by coupons
on the bonds given originally by tn
Winchester company for the Handle.
block. Judge Handley's stipulation
as to how these coupons should be as
sumed is where the alleged sharp prac
tices come in, the Winchester peop
believing that they We're rid of this re
sponsibility when the sale was made t
the Scranton company, but it develop
ing later that they are made to assum
them.
NEW TRIAL WANTED.
The rule for a new trial in the case o
w. c. Tunstall against Joseph f. Bau
meister and others, was argued by Nj
Hamilton, representing the defendants
who are the petitioners. and Mr.. Ross
representing Tunstall. The case grow
out of the disruption Of the Sons o
America Printing company. The pa
per was printed at the Providence Reg
lister plant. When the company de
cided to give up the management o
the paper it turned it over to j. [
Hopewell in payment for what was ow
ing for printing, believing, as Is al
legged, that Mr.. Hopewell was the own
| tT VI lle PROVIDENCE Register. NJ
Hopewell says he is not the owner {
the Register, but that W. C. Tunsta
is. and Mr.. Tunstall seconds the asser
tion by coming in with a bill of $3l
for the printing of the Sons of America
He won the suit and now a ne'
trial is asked for on the ground tina
, the court erred in several instances
but particularly in not admitting a
evidence a campaign circular bearin
John u. Hopewell's portrait, the ar
nouncement that he is a candidate fC
auditor and the statement among othe
things that he is the proprietor an
editor of the Providence Register.
Other cases argued We're: Jaco
Plecher against Scranton Tractio
} company, rule to strike off non-sui
I John Myers against +. Pringle and ott
ers, rule for new trial; A. e. Betterl
against Henry Chapel and other
rule for a new trial; Emma May Va
Horn against John S. Van Horn, ru
for decree in divorce; Patrick McHa
against George ID. Brown, demurrer:
I Elliot Ross against James johnson
} | committee, rule for judgment
I The rule for new trial was di
\ charged in the case of Caroline n
k Reed against Charles Tropp.