The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-06-17

taxes and he accordingly assessed the
property TO William VonStorch.
This morning the plaintiff will pro-
cure the Second ward assessment
books to show that the property has
been assessed to William ever since.
IN THE JURY's HANDS.
The Replogle7 7Frpthingham case went
to the jury at 330 o'clock yesterday
afternoon. Mr.. rockingham. in his
own defense, contended that he had
reason for causing Mr.. Replogle's ar
rest; that Replogle had collected from
him s126 In excess of what he owed
him on a note and refused to return
1t on demand. He denied having told
a client of Mr.. Replogle that he in
tended to have him disbarred and
avowed that the Interview with him
published in the Elmira Telegram was
also wrong, wherein 1t made him say
that he intended to have Mr.. Replogle
disbarred.
Attorney G. S. Woodruff testified that
Mr.. Replogle admitted to him in Mr..
Frothingham's presence that Mr..
rockingham had paid to the sheriff
s12e in excess of the Judgment in ques-
ton, but he considered that he had
heen damased at least to that amount
by Mr.. Frothingham having him ar
rested.
Mrs. Ellen O'Donnell has a suit be-
fore Judge Searle in court room No. 2,
against Charles Du Pont Breck To re-
cover $3.50, which she allt ges he H.
legally detained from her. In 1890 Mrs
O'Donnell sought to purchase the
Monies & Pughe property on Wash
ington avenue, which she heard was
to be sold for $4,000. She went to
Mr.. Breck, she claims, and engaged
him to secure it for her. 1t being agreed
that he would get 1t for less than the
announced price II ne could.
SECURED AN OPTION.
He secured an option on It for S16,-
COO and Mrs. O'Donncll gave him $500
to apply as purchase money. A few
days after this transaction she met
George Mitchell on the street and in a
casual conversation learned that the
property was on the market for S14,-
200. Thereupon she went to Mr.. Breck,
announced her determination not to
buy the property and demanded the
return of her 5000, accompanying her
remarks with some caustic comments
on Mr.. Breck's business methods as
she viewed them.
Mr.. Breck told her 1t was a pity but
rhe would have to forfeit her $500. Then
en- alteration took place and after a
long wrangle she consented to accept
s240 "in full settlement of all matters
up to date" but before leaving the
office gave Mr.. Breck to understand
that she would follow him in law for
the balance.
Mr.. Breck's story is to the effect that
Mrs. O'Donnell one day in passing his
office stepped just inside the door and
in the course of conversation men,
toned that she would like to get the
property referred to, believing it was
a bargain at $4,000. Mr.. Breck agreed
with her that it was a good invest
ment at that figure. Later his firm,
Breck, Dimmick & Reynolds, secured
the property and agreed to sell it to
Mrs. O'Donnell for $4,000. She paid
$500 to bind the bargain, but later
came in and wanted to break the con-
tract. The firm refused at first to hear
this, but after a lengthy discussion a
compromise was effected whereby Mrs
O'Donnell was let off with the pay
ment of $3.50.
w. ]. Hand appeared for the plain
tiff and Cornelius Comegys for the de-
fendant. The case was given to the
jury at adjourning time.
The jury in the case Of w. c. Tun-
stall against Joseph +. Baumeister
and others, came into court yesterday
morning with verdict in favor of the
defendants. At the former trial of the
case the verdict was for the plaintiff.