The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-01-11

The January three weeks term of
common pleas court began yesterday
with Judge Gunster presiding in the
main court room; Judge Edwards in
No. 2, and Judge Albright, of Allen
towr, holding forth in the arbitration
room on the first floor
When the list for the week was called
over the cases of Jacob Raymon
against Tony Maeinotta, Michael Gal
lagher against Martin Cawley, May
Cole against the city of Scranton, and
Jones, Simpson & Co. against Howell
King & Co, were marked continued.
The case of John r. Jones against the
Erie and Wyoming Valley railroad
company, which has been on the list
for nearly ten years was reported set
tied ard taken out of court. 1t was a
suit for damages, which the nlaintin
alleged he sustained by reason of the
company building an overhead bridge
and cmbankment adjacent to his
property on Washington avenue.
The wage case of Charles f.. Brown
against Michael Coyle and Bridget
Reilly and the North End Lumber
company, garnishec, was called before
Judge Gunster, but on a plea of sur
prise, by the defendants, a juror was
withdrawn and the case continued.
George w. Beale appeared for the
plaintiff. Hon. j. c. Vaughan and o.
r.. Partridge were defendants counsel.
Another wage claim, that of Thomas
j. Prote against r. c.. Karrick, was
on before Judge Gunster at adjourn
ment. The plaintiff claims ;:,ere is $40
still owIrg him fol work done as a
tCamster dt the defendants bottling
establishment in Green Ridge. The
defendant alleges having made settle
mont in tull. VostLrg & DAWSON ap
pear for the plaintiff and E. c. New
comb for the defendant.
BEFORE JUDGE EDWARDS.
Before Judge Edwards. F. A. and A.
]. Branda, stenographers. received a
verdict of $22.S4 against James Mich
OILS for work performed during the
hearing of the celebrated Nichols will
case before Deputy Register Hopkins.
The allegation of the plaintiff was that
Nichols agreed that the costs should
abide the result of the case and that
the stenographic work should be taxed
as part of the costs. The case went
against Nichols. The defense was a
denial of this and an attempt to show
that it was Deputy Register Hopkins
who engaged the stenographer and
that the work was done solely for the
registers benefit. The verdict was for
| the full amount of the claim and in
| terest. Hon. c. p. O'Malley and Ros-
coe f. Dale of Willard, Warren &c
| Knapp, were counsel for the plaintiff.
| Vosburg & Dawson appeared for the
| defense.
The case of Bernard Giles against the
| borough Of Winton was the next case
| called before Judge Edwards. The
| plaintiff claims S63 for work done for
the borough. The defense is that he
was not engaged by a qualified officer
of the borough. This is one of the
| numerous cases growing out of the
councimanic muddle in that borough.
| Hon. c. p. O'Malley, of Willard, War
rem & Knapp, represented the plaintiff
and |. II. Burns appeared for the bor-
| ough. The case was on at adjourn
ment.
HOWLEY-HURL CASE.
Judge Albright was given the not al
| together delightful task of wrestling
with the tedious and complicated How
| ey-Hurley case. HOwley Bros, of
| Penn avenue. claim Of r. L. Hurley a
| 5000 balance for work done on two
| buildings in North Park. The defend
ant alleges that the work was not done
| according to contract and refuses Ia
pay what the plaintiff demands. The
contract was deficient in many re-
spects and there are a number of side
issues which make it a rather difficult
case to entansle. 1t was called for
trial before Judge Archibald at the last
term of civil court, but after two days
had been spent and the case had not
even been well begun court became
tired of the job and threw it up, tell
ing the parties that they had better
continue it for settlement. 1t was
continued but no settlement was reach
ed and 1t bobs up again at the head of