The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-07-22
OPINIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT
CITY HAS RIGHT TO CHANGE AS
sEssMENTs AT WILL.
Supreme Court Reverses the Lower
Court in the Case of Joseph j.
Jermyn Against the City of scran-
ton--Verdict Awarded to James
Gavigan in His Suit Against the
Atlantic Refining Company Will
Stand-Lower Court Sustained in
the Steere- Oakley Case.

Tho supreme court of Pennsylvania |
in session st Harrisburg. yesterday /
handed down opinions In three Lacka- |
wanna county cases. 1t reverses Judge |
Archbalds ruling in the equity suit |
of Joseph j. Jermyn against the city |
assessors and the board Of revision |
and appeals. 1t afIirms the verdict of |
the lower court ir the suit of James
Gavigan against the Atlantic Refining
company. And in the suit of c. c. |
Steere against ID. X. oakley it re-
verses the finding Of the superior court
and affirms the judgment of the lower
court. The Steere-Oakley case has ac-
cumulated bill Of costs almost the
size of the verdict.
No opinion was handed down in the
Van Horn murder case. Attorney l..
p. Wedeman was expecting telegram
from Frothonotary Green with regard
to the disposition of the case. The
likelihood is that it will not be decided
until September. Mr.. Wedeman said
yesterday that he is prepared TO go to
the United States supreme court with
it on unconstitutional questions. He
claims it deprived the defendant of "A
constitutional right to allow the jury
to go out and view the premises where
bringing Van Horn along also.
The Jermyn equity suit against the
assessors and board of revision and
appeals arose over the increase of Mr..
Jermyn's assessment. In 1895 his
property in the Eighth ward was as
sessed s11, O0C. That was tr!ennial
assessment. For the year 1897, how
ever, the board acting under the au-
thority of the act of 1895 issued a pre-
cept to the city assessors and a new
assessment was made which raised
Mr.. Jermyn's valuation to $4,000. To
secure relief from this extra Assess
ment he brought equity proceedings.
MIR. JERMYN'S CONTENTION.
He set forth as his reasons that the
valuation as fixed in 1895 could not be
legally altered or changed until 1898,
the year of the next triennial assess
ment, as no changes had been made
since 1895 on his property in the Eighth
ward. The altered assessment, he said
was void for the further reason that
the valuation was fixed by a so-called
assistant assessor in the ward, when
in fact no such officer or office had any
existence.
Judge Archibald in his opinion said
that the provisions of the act of 1895
which gave to the board of revision
and appeals the power of ordering a
new assessment oftener than once in
three years We're vicious in principle
and more than that in his judgment,
| unconstitutional. The provision which
was of special concern in that case
was that which reads that the board
of revision and appea' may in any
year other than triei .ial year. if they
deem a new assessment necessary, on
or before the first day of September,
issue their precept to the city assessors
requiring them to make out and return
a full, just, and equal assessment OF
| property within the city or such parts
| thereof as the board may deem ad-
| visable."
Judge Archibald said that until the
board had spoken a taxpayer could
| have no idea whether the valuation of
his property was to be subjected to
| new assessment or not. The matter is
| left to the unguided judgment of
| majority of the board and is subject
to their varying caprices. The one
thing lacking, Judge Archibald said,
| was the criterion by which the neces-
| sity for a new assessment is to be
| judged; this is vital and should ap-
pear by the law itself. The legisla-
| ture did not say that under such and
such circumstances, if the board deem
| necessary a new assessment may be
| ordered.
The city appealed from Judge Arch
| bald's ruling with the effect stated
| City Solicitor NJ. A. Mckinley and At
torney James II. Torrey represented
| the city. l. II. Burns was attorney for
Mr.. Jermyn.
STEERE-OAKLEY CASE.
| The case of Steere against Oakley Is
| an interesting one. Vosburg & Daw-
| son, the plaintiffs attorneys, in their
paper book filed in the superior court
| have this to say: 1T would be ex-
| tremnly difficult to find among the
records of Pennsylvania a civil case
that appeals more strongly to the sense
of justice that is inherent in every
hsNrt than the one at bar. A poor
| farmer owing a debt. borrows Of a
rich money lender enough to relieve
his current necessities; implicitly
trusts his creditor to figure the inter-
est; tolls and saves and grows old
to pay the debt; is threatened by his
creditor until he pays him what he
1
the man whom he trusted has defraud-
ed and cheated him."
In 1873 c. G.. Steere, a farmer of
Kingsley, Susquehanna county, bor-
rowed S94527 from d. X. Oakley and
| gave mortgage. From time to time
until 1887 Steere paid sums on the in
terest and principal. and on Oct. 16
OF that year Oakley demanded set
| Cl1ip1a1
Steere owed him $l943.1s. The money
| to pay this claim was borrowed from
man named Henry Brewster. Dur
ing all the years of their dealings,
Oakley computed the interest. Steere
was unable to figure and could barely
do more than sign his own name.
GAVIGAN CASE.
The Judgment of the lower court was
affirmed in the trespass suit of James
| Gavisan, of the Seventh ward, against
the Atlantic Refining company Mr..
| Gavisan brought suit for damages for
the impairment of his comfort and
home enjoyment resulting from the
smell that came into premises from the
defendants oil tanks adjacently situ-
ated, Mr.. Gavigan had lived there for
years before the Refining company be-
came his neishbor After that though.
he could not occupy the porch even
ings. nor open the windows of his
house for pure air
The case came Up for trial before
Judge Edwards few years ago. Hon.
! John =. Kelley, NJ. j. Donahoe and I.
II. Burns were attorneys for Mr., Gavi-
gan and Watson & Dehl represented
| the defendant verdict of $3.50 WAS