The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-05-13

Prothonotary Copeland yesterday re-
ceived from the Supreme court the
opinion in the noted case of Mrs. Mary
Ann Rosenagle, of New York, against
the late ex-Judge John Handley. 1t
says that the law was correctly stated
by the court to the jury. and no evil
dence was admitted except what was
material and relevant; and that if
there was any mistake in the trial it
is charged not to the court, but to the
jury: and the Supreme court is not the
proper place for the correction of such
an error, If any exists. This was the
second time the case has been passed
upon by the highest tribunal in the
state.
1t came UP for trial first in April.
1883, before the late Judge Connolly.
The jury returned a verdict for the
defendant. The Supreme court in Oc-
tober, 1892. reversed the judgment on
the ground that Judge Connolly in his
charge referred to Judge Handleys
position as judge, and pointed to his
high standing in the community.
In January. 1894, the case was tried
before Judge Edwards and a verdict
was again found for the defendant. In
tate were substituted as defendants.
EMPLOYED JUDGE HANDLEY.
Mrs. Rosenagle in 1866 secured the
services of Judge Handley, then a prac-
ticing lawyer in Luzerne county, to COL
lect the premium of $4,000 upon an in
surance policy on the life of her
mother, who had died. Before he was
able to enforce the collection of that
claim according to due process of law,
he was elected additional law judge Of
Luzerne county and subsequently be-
came president judge of this county.
After he entered upon the judgeship
the money was recovered through an
amicable arrangement and on Dec. Is,
1883, she met him in his chambers in
the court house and she was paid $4,000.
The balance was to pay the judge for
certain moneys he had expended for
Mrs. Rosenagle, which amounted TO
s9i0. He, it is alleged, charged her
nothing for his services.
The evidence showed at the trial that
the settlement was satisfactory and
harmonious to both parties.
She alleged that, being desirous of
investing the money thus paid to her,
she asked his advice and he counseled
her to put it in United States bonds,
Lackawanna county bonds, in bank
stock, or in the stock of the Wyoming
Manufacturing company. He told her,
she said, that he had $50,0O0 then in
vested in the company, that he was
it's president, and that it was Il solvent
corporation; that he would guarantee
6 per cent, and a probable 10 per cent
dividend.
SHE INVESTED HER MONEY.
BY reason of these inducements and
the confidence she had in the Judge
she parted with her $4,000 and invested
it in the Wyoming institution. 1t was
contended on the first trial of the CASE
that at the time the judge sold tn,
certificate Of stock to Mrs. Rosenagl,
the company was insolvent and tina
the stock was selling at 80 cents on III,
dollar
The defense was that Mrs. Rosen
| agile subscribed her money for Wyo
ming stock of her own free will anC
| that the company was on a substan
| tial basis when she did, but that tw'
| or three years later, through misman
! agement it went to the wall, whicl
was no fault of his.
Hon. II. w Palmer, in arguing be
| fore the Supreme court, went so far a
to say that Judge Handley continued
10 pay the dividends out of his owl
| pocket on her investment long afte
| the corporation became insolvent
rather than see her suffer by even al
| indirect act on his part.
The disposition now made will in al
| probability be the end of the case. Th
| Supreme court will hardly grant a re
hearing. Attorneys ]. w. Oakford ant
| c. II. Soper represented Mrs. Rosen
| agile.