The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-10-06

In common pleas court yesterday YER
diets for the defendants were return
ed in the Jointly tried cases of c. II.
Gerowe against the G. NJ. Hapgcod
Shoe company and William Needy.
The defendants seized upon and sold
on execution q quantity Of shoes as the
property OF L. l.. Riecenberg, NJ Roif-
enherg's shoe store III Carbondale.
Gerowe, who is business man in
onconta, n. Y, came in with a claim
for the goods. alleging that nc owned
the store and stocked it and that =.
T.. Rlefenberg and not A. l.. Riefenberg
was in charge of It. The jury believed
that the last named Riefenberg was
in control of the stock and by their
verdict said that the sale was regu-
lar.
In the OK case in which A. l.. Rhodes
was plaintiff and o. f. Vaughan defen-
dent, the jury returned a verdiC. in
favor of the plaintiff for $72. Rhodes
sold pair of oxen for 800. when
Vaughan received them he was not
satisfied with their condition and not
flying Rhodes that the cattle were not
as represented refused payment and
ordered them taken awav. There was
a conflict of testimony all through the
| case and particularly ON the details
of Vaughan's notification to Rhodes
to take the oxen away.
SPECIAL VERDICT.
The jury found, specially at Judge
Archbald's request. that the cattle We're
| warranted to be sound; that they We're
| not as good as warranted and that
| $3.50 represented the degree in which
! they fell short of being as represented.
| Some expenses which Vaughan was
| put to and which Rhodes ought to
| stand, coupled with the $22,5O rebate.
! allowed by the jury. brought the ver-
! dict down to S72
As predicted there was some very
lofty swearing in the case of w. w.
! Williams against Thomas ]. Healey
when it got we'll under way yesterday
| morning. Williams sued on a note for
! $50 which he alleges was given him in
1884 to cover a bill for carpenter work
on Healey's house He and his wife
both testified positively that the note
was drawn in their presence and that
| they saw every stroke of the pen made
by Healey in attaching his signature.
| Mr.. Williams further testified that
three small payments amounting to
$40 were made at various times on the
note by Healey personally, and that
those with a subsequent promise to
pay kept the note from death by the
salute of limitation.
Healey went on the stand and with
positiveness equalling that of the Will
liams' swore that Williams never did
any carpenter work for him; that he
never gave him a note or signed any
g. H.,
the name of Williams; that the sig
nature on the note in question was
not his: that he never made any par
tial payments of any kind to Williams
and that he never had any dealings,
good or bad, or Indifferent, with his
alleged creditor. He also said that the
first knowledge he had of the note
was in 1895, eleven years after it is
alleged to have been given, when Will
liams attempted to execute on it.
EXPERT TESTIMONY.
Prof A. r. Whitmore, principal OF
the Scranton Business college, who
claims to have thirteen years eXper-
ienCe as a teacher of penmanship, was
called as an expert by the plaintiff
and gave it as his opinion that the
signature on the note and other sig.
natures admitted to be Healey's, were
made by the same hand.
The jury went out at o'clock, hui
had not reached an agreement at ad
journment.
: The Olyphant bank case is still on be
fore Judge Searle in court room No. .
Just before adjournment in No. /
Judge Archibald called up the case o
John Steigerwalt against William w
. Chase, suit to recover for extra worl
on house on the West Side. Th,
, amount of the claim is s195 and it il
based upon changes made in the orig
5 inal plans by the defendant and hi
wife. The defense is that the change
in question resulted in a saving rathe
! than an extra expenditure and tina
r such was understood by both partie
' at the time. EX-Judge Stanton repre-
n sents the plaintiff and w. Gaylor'
0 Thomas the defendants.