The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-01-13
Wilkes.Barre Demands $500 Year for
Its City Officials.
THIRD DAY OF SUPERIOR COURT


tPrday. IOday anu lOH1OrTOW lsd'hu-
wanna will have it's innings.
The first case called yesterday morn
ing was that of John Davis. appellant,
against Patrick Martin. ID. l.. ONeill,
John NJ Garman and j. +. O'Neill ar
pued for the appellant, ard j. o. opp.
CE"Attorney General II. w. Palmer ana
A. II. McCintock for the appellee. 1t
appears that Joseph Davis. the uncle
of the plaintiff, decided to John Davis,
the father of the plaintiff. lot of land
in the Fourteenth ward OF wilkes
Barre, conditioned that the recipient
SHOULD support him during the rest of
shs. life.'. After the grant had been
made the erantor. Joseph Davis. made
a will beuueathing to a granddaughter.
Samuel Weidrick, all his property, not
Specifying what it consisted of. Judge
Woodward, in the ejectment proceed
iugs. which followed ruled that as Da-
Wis had not shown IL performance ot
the conditions specified in the grant.
that he could not claim the property.
and that Weidrck's title was the legal
one. The apu- al was from this deci-
sion.
T.. +. McGOvern for the plaintiff and
the Messrs O'Nrill for the defendant,
SErt appellee against John Batterton
and Elizabeth Ratterton, appellants. 1t
Was an appeal from finding by Judge
J.. w, Gunster, specially presiding in
II cas-" to determine ownership Of a
sewing machine which Bog5rt rented
10. man named Essing. and which
Mrs. battertou bought AT COnstable's
sale. rought about ny the landlord.
A NOVEL CASE.
\ royei and interesting case was dis
oONered under title of the city Of
Wilkes Barre against +. II. Chase, APP
psllant II is an appeal from the
Judgment of the common pleas of Lu-
zerne, decreeing that the receiver of
taxes should pay rent for his office in
the city hall. II. w. Palmer appeared
for the appellant and City Solicitor w.
S. Mclean for the appellee.
The Grrellant contends that the city
has no right TO erect building for the
purpose of renting 1t; that the coun-
ell has the power to designate the loCa-
tion of the tax receivers office. and has
located it in the city hall, refusing
to approve of any other location; that
the city has no right to charge officers
of the city government rent for the
occupation of city building; that it
has always been the custom to provide
public officials with offices in public
buildings, free of rent
In answer to this the city says: A
municipality cannot erect building
for rental purposes but when a build
ing Is erected primarily for municipal
purposes it may fit up and rent such
larts of II as are not used for NUM-
Cipal purposes; that the receiver OF
taxes is not exclusively a city officer
being collector of state, county, school
and poor taxes as well as city taxes;
that outside of his power tn collect city
taxes. he is no more an official of the
city than an alderman, constable or
inspector of elections.
Judge w. W. Schuyler, of NOrthamp-
ton, who was called to specially pre-
side in the case, ruled at the trial that
the tax receiver being an appointee OF
abe court was a court officer. General
Palmer. in reply to this, makes the
pointed speculation: What would
court say if the receiver of taxes
should become an embezzer and upOr
being arraigned made the plea that he
could not be indicted because he wac
an officer of the court and not of the
City?"
COLUMBIA COUNTY CASE.
. Another case with an interesting
question involved Is that of the appeal
from the quarter sessions of Columbia
county in the matter of the petition OF
j. Boyd McHenry sheriff of Columba
county, for the approval and appoint.
ment of a jailOr and keeper. r. r. Kit
tie argued fCi the appellant, and Grant
Herring for the appellee. the sheriff.
The sheriff appointed Henry Kline a:
keeper of the Columbia county Jail
He worked for eight months and theI
the county commissioners declared tha
his appointment was not authorized by
law and refused to pay him. The loca
court, Judge Craig, presiding, declared
that Kline was de facto If not de jur,
u keeper and an officer of the county
and gave him judgment for the eigh
months he was employed. The com
mssoners thereupon appealed,
The appellants claim is that tn
penal code of 1860, by implication, re
pealed the law of 1890, providing TO
he appointment OF keepers in count,
prisons. A keeuer under the law 4
understood to be "a person who super
NlS"S cOnNlCtS sentenced to hard labor
ard az such convicts now go to tn
renitentiary no such office as keepe
of county prisons exists, excepting tn
keepers, su-called, who are employees o
the sheriff and not officers of tn
comfy.
The appellee contended that the pen
a code did not forbid any county fron
maintaining workhouse in connection
with the prison. 1t only directed tina
all prisoners sentenced to more than
year should be put at hard labor. Ar
suments were also advanced In sup
port of the contention that Kline was
de facto empfOye at all events. an
should receive his eight months pay
RECORD THE APPELLANT.
4 case stated between J. c. Johnso
and J. Z. Powell, doing business as tn
Wilkes-B Barre Record, appellant, an
the county OF Luzerne, was submitte
without argument by George 8. Ferri
and q. l.. Halsey, the respective attor
neys.
The Record published the sheriff