The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-03-11

stable j. S. Miller and four colored dep
utes, succeeded in getting possession
yesterday. This was not accomplished
without much trouble, and for a time
bloodshed appeared imminent.
At 8 o'clock yesterday morning Con-
stable Miller and squad went to the
Weyandt home, and upon entering the
gate revolvers were drawn as the OFF,
GERS anticipated a repetition of the
warm receptions given since the begin
ming of the litigation. When the Off
GERS raped for admittance no response
was given, and upon investigating it
was ascertained that the occupants
were not at home. 1t so happened
that Weyandt and his children were in
the arbitration room at the court mouse
appearing as witnesses in case
against the estate. The constable or
dered his men to force the door open.
and Mr.. Miller entered and began to
have the furniture removed to the
yard. Residing across the street from
Weyand's is Fred Westpfahl, grand
father of the children. and when he
saw the officers he seized his rifle and
rushing in commanded them to stop.
OLD MAN HANDCUFFED.
and he was Immediately handcuffed.
and the remainder of the goods from
callar to garret were removed When
the work was ended the OLD man was
released and the officers departed. Mr..
Westpfahl started for the central city
and informed a son-in-law Joseph
Lewert, of what had occurred and both
men returned to the scene.
few hours later many people were
on the scene, armed with pistols. They
remained all day awaiting re-appear-
ance of the officers, but none of them
came
The case is a very complicated one
and possesses many unusual features
Like every other case, it has two sides
The real contending parties are Will
liam Westpfahl, grandfather of the
Weyandt children, and Fred. Weyandt,
their uncle.
The latter claims that he bought the
property from his brother William in
September, 1895. 1t was advertised to
be sold at sheriff's sale and few days
before the sale William waited on Fred.
and, telling him that he would be un-
able to retain the property, advised
him to buy it, saying he might have it
If he would settle the claims against
1t and pay small bonus besides. Fred.
did this and claims it cost him s2,375.
Receiving an offer for the property
from S. S. Spruks he closed a bargain
with him and proceeded to secure pos
session that he might convey it when
Spruks should be ready to close the
option. The tenants refused to vacate
and proceedings were brought before
Alderman Wright to dispossess them.
Judgment was obtained and a writ to
oust the occupants given to Constable
j. S. Miller.
MET WITlI OPPOSITION.
The constable went over with three
men to enforce the writ and, as de-
scrihed at the time, met with very
forciS!e opposition. The house had
been fortified by the children and their
grandfather and the best the consta BILE
and his deputies could do was to es-
tablish themselves in the barn. The
three deputies remained there for a
week, pending the hearing of motion
brought by the defendants to enjoin
the execution of the writ of disposses-
sion. Court discharged the rule and
YESTERDAY morning Constable Miller
| once more proceeded to carry out the
behests Of his warrant AS described
above he succeeded. and now Fred.
Weyandt is in full and forcible possess
sion Of the property.
On the other side Of the case. 1t is
aVerred that the transfer from William
to Fred. was fraudulent and hence null
and void. The property was originally
| owned by the grandfather, William
Westpfahl. He gave it to his daugh-
20, h., i
| benefit curing her lifetime and for the
use CT her children after her death.
His son-in-law, William Weyandt, so
| he alleges, fell into dissolute habits and
| for number of years has not lived
| with his children. He, however claimed
the husbands right in the property and
| on the strength of this claim borrowed
money and in other ways encumbered
the property with debt. Finally, when
he saw it was about to pass from his
hands, he went to his brother and ar
ranged with him to buy it in.
NO LEGAL CONSIDERATION.
Westpfahl alleges, and William Wey-
andt, who has since had a falling out
| with his brother, corroborates him in
| it., that the transfer from William to
Fred was fraudulent; that the judg-
ment held by Fred. was given without
a legal consideration and that il was
| given for the purpose of defrauding,
Morally, the children claim their
father had no right to cucumber the
| property or dispose of il, and, legally
| the conveyance he made was made
| fraudulently; hence their opposition tC
their uncle's claim.
They will proceed in court to have
the judgment opened and attempt tC
have the transfer from their father tC
their uncle annuled.
The incidents leading up to yester-
days eviction scene were brought out
in detail at a hearing before Arbitra
tors j. w. Carpenter r. j. Murray and
j. r.. Edwards in the arbitration room
yesterday. 1t was a suit brought by
5. S. Spruks to recover 81, 900 damages
for breach of contract on the part OF
Fred. Weyandt.
Last September Fred. gave Spruks a
ninety-day option on the property foI
$S,6OO 500 being paid down as option
| money. On the last day of the ninety
Spruks rendered the remainder of the
sS,4OO and demanded TO be put in pos
session of the property. Weyandt
could not give him possession and
spruks thereby lost an opportunity OF
selling the property at an advance OF
$500. He now sues for the return OF
the 800 forfeit and for damages result.
ing from Weyandts failure to deliver
the property as agreed.
TERMS OF OPTION.