The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-05-27

Judge Edwards yesterday handed
down an opinion refusing the prelimin-
ary injunction brought by one faction
of the Winton school board to restrain
the other from acting. In his finding
Judge Edwards says:
There are two bodies in the borough of
Winton, each claiming to be the regular
borough council. Both bodies meet i'm
the borough building, both pretend 10
carry on the government Of the borough,
each having its own officers and each hav-
ing five members, although the borough
has but nine councilmen. The following
circumstances account for the existence of
these two rival organizations:
j. On Feb. 6, 1896, this court made
decree dividing the borough Of Winton
into three wards and directed that three
councilmen should be elected for the First
ward, one for one year, one for two years,
and one for three years; one councilman
for the Second ward for three years, AMI
one councilman from the Third ward for
three years.
WHAT BARRETT CLAIMS.
2. At the election held in February, 1896,
in the Third ward, with only one council
man to elect, p. C. Walsh reoei, ed 109 votes
and Edward Costello II votes. The words
for three years" were printed on the
ballots after Costelo's name, but no
words designated the number of years
after Walsh's name. Walsh was admitt-
ed as a member of the comci; and acted
as such for the year 1896 and claims the
right to act for two years more.
3. At the February election of 1897, as
the returns show, William Barrett re-
ceived in the Third ward 6+ votes for the
office of councilman. He claims the right
of Il member of the borough council by
virtue of his election
Barrett held that Costello was legally
elected and not Walsh, and as Costello
failed to qualify vancancy existed. This
vacancy he claims he was duly elected to
fill at the next succeeding election.1
A. When the time came for the council
to organize in March, eight councilmen,
whose titles to their offices are undisputel,
were presented. They were apparently
divided with p c. Walsh as the fifth
member, attempted an organization, and,
according to certain minutes presented by
their secretary did organize. The other
four members, with William Barrett as
the fifth member did likewise and their
secretary presented minutes showing an
organization. These alleged o. organizations
by both factions were not by any means
of a peaceful and orderly character. There
was great confusion and an incipient riot
The proceedings were disgraceful. We
cannot call them by any other name.
The foregoing is brief statement of
the facts of the case according 10 the evil
dence taken. 1t will be easily seen that
the legality of either organization depends
upon the right of Barrett and Walsh to
the office of councilman of the Third ward
of the borough of Winton. 1t would be
impossible for us to decide the question
of granting an injunction in this case
without first deciding the right OF Barrett
or Walsh to the said Office.
THEIR LEGAL REMEDY.
Under these circumstances the parties
must be relegated to their legal remedy,
which Is writ of quo warrento. 1t makes
no difference which of the claimants shall
be the actor. They ought to agree on a
case stated. The facts are undisputed.
The legal question in dispute could be dis
posed of speedily, and should be in the in
terests of the borough.
Counsel for plaintiffs refer to Kerr VS..
Trego, AZ Pa. 292, This case stands alone
in the list of adjudicated cases touching
the question of the organization of coua.
ellis. The facts involved in it were un-
usual and of an extraordinary character.
We do not see how it is any authority for
the plaintiffs position in this case. AS
was said by Justice Green in Bedford
Springs Company VS.. McMeen ct. al, l61
IA, G39: questions or election were not
raised or decided" referring TO certain
cases cited. The same is true of Kerr VS..
Trego. The right to quell a disturbance
in councils, made by disorderly persons,
was the chief subject of contention. The
subject of the validity of the election of
the incoming members was not discussed
or decided.
The remedy at law when the title to a
public office is involved is adequate and
exclusive: Gilroy's appeal, 100 Pa. 10;
Bedford Springs company VS.. McMeen, ct
| al, supra Goldsworthy, ct. al, VS.. Boyle
ct. al. 175 Pa. 246.
Now, May 26, 1897, the rule to show
cause why preliminary injunction should
not issue in this case as prayed for is dis
charged and preliminary injunction is
refused
/. Fl. Burns and Hon. T. V. Powderly
appeared for the injunction and
Hon. John p. Kelly, of O'Brien &
Kelly, and Hon. c. p. O'Malley, OF
Warren &c Knapp, against it.
Pile TcrrOrs Swept Away.