The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-05-04

In argument court yesterday the i'm
portant case i'm equity brought by Jo-
seph J. JermYn against the twenty one
school controllers Of the city was heard
before Judges Archibald and Gunster.
Attorney l. II. Burns represented Mr..
Jermyn. and Attorney ID. j. Recdy, the
defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that the school
tax should be levied upon the valuation
made by the county assessors. which is
s3,000000 lower than the valuation made
by the city assessors. If the millage
for school purposes this year be the
same as last, Ia mills. there will be Si2,-
0C0 less school tax for the taxpayers to
pay IL the plaintiff wins.
The act of assembly chartering Scran-
ton as a city was passed In 1866. In
1867 "a supplement was passed author
izing the levying of taxes for all city
purposes, poor, school, special, and gen.
eral. and it fixed the city valuation as
the basis upon which such tax should
be assessed. Mr.. Burns argued that
the supplementary act is unconstitu-
tional because it's title is defective. The
title simply reads, IAN act intended to
define the rights and powers of cities"
tionality of the supplementary act re.
quires the board to go back to the gen.
| eral act of 1854, which provides that
school tax shall be levied upon the
! county valuation.
WHAT THE JUDGE INTIMATED.
Judge Gunster intimated that ~
might be better not to press the case
| to a conclusion until the Supreme court
! dispOses of the appeal to GUST the twen-
| ty-one directors. The case of the Pitts
ton board, similar to ours, is now in
the hands of the Supreme court end the
! decision is expected in week or two.
If that goes against the board of twen-
| ty-one, the board of six will take their
seats on the first Monday in June
Mr.. Burns said the object now was to
prevent the present board from going
ahead with the levy. Solicitor Reedy
assured him that the levy would not
be made until the Pittston case is dis
posed of. That was agreeable to the
| plaintiff and the case will be held over
until then.
Attorney o. B. Partridge applied for
an order for counsel fees and alinony
In the proceedings for divorce brought
by Richard Walsh against Maria
| Walsh. In stating the motion MIR.
Partridge said the court was too lenient
with Richard. In criminal court last
week a nolle pros was permitted in the
case against him by Bridget Garvey.
Instead of that the court should have
sent him to the penitentiary, Mr.. Part
ridge said. Walsh is nearly 10 years
old, and while living apart from his
| Nttifn 10 hat
Court ordered that he pay s25 for coun-
sci fees and S. a month a1mony pend
ing the divorce proceedings.
Attorney A. \ Chase attacked the
regularity of proceedings in the assess
ment OF damages in the Eleventh ward
sewer system. He claimed the viewers
were not sworn. and that they did not
give the notice through the papers as
required by law. And also that many
OF the people assessed would not derive
any benefit from the sewer.
RROCKWAY DIVORCE CASE.
Court made an order granting $35 fo1
counsel fees and $50 for expenses in the
divorce proceedings of Richard b
Rrockway against Fannie May Brock
way
The case of the Carbondale Herald
against the auditors of the TOWNSHIP
was argued. The auditors ordered th
annual report of the supervisors ant
school board printed in the Herald, ant
there is a dispute as to who should pa!
the bill.
The other cases argued were: G,
Brock VS.. T. Hunt Brock; rule to opel
/ Judgment, and the Suburban Electri
Light company VS.. Anna " Konecny
, ct al; rule to open Judgment.
Still the leader the Pocono, &c, cigar