The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1898-11-28
BOROUGH RESTRAINED.
CONTINUED from First Page. ,

and paid over by him as aforesaid, and de
ducting commissions and exonerations to
which he is by law entitled, your petitioners
verify ever, and expect to be able to prove
that the said collector is not indebted TO the
sum claimed in this case but in a far
less sum, if any sum at all and that the said
collector, upon a fair settlement of his
accounts, is entitled to credit for a sum
amounting to over $1,000 for taxes SO
collected and paid over by him as aforesaid
on said duplicate for borough taxes for the
year 1896, and for which said sum he has not
been allowed credit thereon by said borough
Gour petitioners further aver that the said
sum of 1854. .05 is not due by said collector
on the duplicate for school taxes for said year
1896, rs set forth in the statement filed by
the School District in the above case. That
the total amount of taxes charged in said
| duplicate amounts to the sum of S35. 1853 So
and that the said collector has paid to the
| treasurer of said district and is entitled to
/ credit therefore on said duplicate, the sum Of
! S2s, S75 in cash and, with other credits for
| commissions, abatements and exonemtions to
which he is entitled. the balance due thereon
would, as your petitioners aver, and expect
to be able to prove. amount to less than
81 900
Your petitioners further aver that there
are still outstanding certain taxes on all the
duplicates for the said year 1896 which are
collectable, and that there has not been any
proper, or full settlement of the accounts of
the said collector for any of said duplicates,
and that upon proper settlement Of the ac-
counts of said collector, and allowances for
all the credits to which he is lawfully en-
titled, it will appear, as your petitioners aver,
and expect to be able to prove ON a tiial of
this case, that the plaintiffs are not entitled
to collect the sum alleged and contained in
their statements filed by them, respectively,
as aforesaid.
Wherefore, your petitioners, averring all
the facts above set forth are true, as they
verify believe and expect to be able to prove
pray your honorable court to grant rule IN
the above case to show cause why the said
judgment should not be stricken off, or
opened, and thus allow them to make
defense. And they will ever pray, etc.
The petition above was sworn to E. c.
BrObst, Michael Mellet and Joseph Rynka-
wicz before Justice Toomey, Mt Shenandoah,
on Nov. 26, 1898.
Upon the presentation of the petition to
court this morning by Hon. James B. Reilly,
Nicholas Heblich and William A. Mari, Esqs.,
counsel for the petitioners, Judge Bechtel
granted the following rule:
And, now, tOwit November 2s, 1s9s the
foregoing petition having been presented and
heard, the court, on motion of James B.
Reilly, Nicholas Heblich and VIM A. Mari,
attorneys for the petitioners, grants a rule in
the above stated case to show cause why the
said judgment thereon should not be opened
and defendants allowed to make defense
thereto, returnable on Monday, Dec 10, 1898
at 10 O'Clock a. M, all proceedings to be
stayed. In the meantime lien to remain.
by the Court "