The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-10-28
in ARGUMENT COURT.
McDade-Spencer Injunction Case
Was UP for a Hearing--Decree
of Divorce Granted in the
Winton Proceedings.

Arguments were heard yesterday
by Judges Archibald and Edwards in
the injunction suit of Dennis II. Nc
Dade and others against a. L. Spen-
Ger in which the plaintiffs seek to en-
Join the defendant from mining coal
from the surface veins underneath
their properties. The defense de-
INJURED to the form of the p!aintiff's
bill alleging that each plaintiff should
proceed separately. Court reserved
its decision.
In the case of w. II. Davitt against
Joseph II. Duggan, the exceptions Of
the defendant to the finding of court
We're overruled.
The demurrer in the injunction case
Donnell and others was overruled and
the defendants given twenty days in
which to make answer.
BY agreement the exceptions to the
report of the referee was dismissed
and the report confirmed in the case
of the school district of Carbondale
township against the school district
of Carbondale city.
\ decree in divorce was granted in
the case of Ella l.. Winton against
Walter NJ. Winton
In the case of l.. b. Thompson
against Josephine Mott, Judge Arch
bald handed down the following opin-
ion and order: ITO defeat the use of
the judgment held by the defendant,
as an offset to that of the plaintiff,
Mr.. Brown, the plaintiffs attorney,
produces an assignment to himself.
bearing date of June 9, the day the
plaintiff received a verdict. This was
recorded at once and if taken in good
faith and for value, is a bar to the
present proceedings. But upon this
point we need proof. On the face of
things an assignment by a party to
his attorney is almost an assignment
to himself and affords such opportu
nifty for collusion that it ought to be
shown to be straightforward trans
action by evidence. Without this we
are not inclined to allow it to defeat
such an offset as is asked for here.
Let the case stand over for fur
ther proof"
In the case of the DanVille Brew
ing company against Sylvester Wis
niskie, the rule to dissolve the attach
| ment was dissolved.
The following cases were argued
| owen Collins against the city of
| Scranton, rule for a new trial: Will
| liam NJ. Silkman against w. F. Will
| and others, rule to show cause why
| execution should not issue: Elizabeth
| Beech against the city Of Scranton,
| exceptions to the report of the referee
commonwealth of Pennsylvania to use
| of Lackawanna county against w. H.
| Whyte, rule TO modify forfeiture; Pat
rick Brown against r. c. Robinson.
| rule for a new trial: Hillside Coal and
| Iron company against w. J. Pitt, eX-
| ceptions.
Other cases were dealt with as fol-
| lows:
Rule absolute: United Security Life
| Insurance and Trust company against
Leon + Olchefski, rule for judgment; /;
Bridget Hickey against James ]. Rog-
ers, rule to open judgment; Mulhern
& Judge against Mary Mooney and
| others. rule for judgment.
| Rule discharged: Matthew Nichol-
son against Nathan Thompson. rule
| to strike off appeal: John l.. Hull
against Mary Donnelly, rule to strike
| oft appeal.
| Judgment reversed: Bridget Moran
against Hubert Duggan, certiorari.
| submitted; Catherine A. Butler
against Isaac II, Butler rule for de-
cree in divorce; DAYTON ID. Franklin
against Susan A. Franklin, rule fol
decree in divorce; Martha Holman
against Henry G. Holman, rule fol
decree in divorce; Mary Lally against
Mary Moran and others, exceptions
Louisa Lyman against Louis Smith
and Others, exceptions.