The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-11-23
A MUCH TRIED CASE.
Came UP for Hearing in Common
Pleas Court Before Judge Ed
wards Yesterday-Some of
the Other Cases.

The complicated and much-tried Bit
tenbender- Biesecker case came up be-
fore Judge Edwards in common pleas
court yesterday. Ii is a suit on note
for 1925, given to Catherine Bitten
bender, of this city. by Catherine Bic
seeker and her son, Irwin, of Moscow,
and William Koch, who signed it as
surety The Bieseckers defaulted in
payment and now Mrs. Bittenbender
is suing Koch to recover.
The local courts opened the judgment
as to Koch and the Superior court
affirmed this finding. Koch defends on
the ground that he received no con-
sideration for signing, and that he was
assured by Mrs. Bittenbender before
he signed the note that she would not
hold him liable. He says that Mrs.
Bittenbender agreed to enter the note
against the Bieseckers and keep it re-
vived against their real estate. She
failed to do this latter and when the
judgment lost it's lien other judgments
Crept in ahead of it and left Mrs. Bit
tenbender's claim out in the cold.
Mrs. Bittenbender admits that she
agreed to follow the Bieseckers first,
but left it to Koch. at his own sug-
gestion, to look after the revival of
the Judgment. George ID. Taylor rep
resents the plaintiff, and +. c. New
comb and O'Brien & Kelly the de-
fendant.
A case of trespass under the cYemp-
,;.,l L. I'd
Gunster. John Copper is the plaintiff
and Drake & Stewart the defendants.
Copper rented a store from the de-
PENDANTS and was sold out for $2S. He
says now that he claimed the benefit
of the exemption law. but that they
| ignored his notice and sold his furni-
! ture, valued at 5000.
The defense is that no mention was
made of the exemption law and fur
! ther that Copper turned over large
amount of his property to third party
| when the seizure was about To be
made. This would estop him, il is
| claimed, from having recourse to the
| exemption laws. --..-Judgc stanton
| represents the plaintiff, and eX-Judge
! Knapp the defendants.
| A verdict of $lS2.21, i'm favor of the
piciIlllll, was tnl'l'l ny az ttlIitll III
| the case of James Rooney against
| Grover & Hornbaler.
A compulsory nOn-suit was granted
| by Judge Gunstcr in the case of John
| Pressman against Dickson City bor-
| ough. He sued for damages tn his
| property caused by an overflow of wat
| cr which was due, he alleged, to the
| failure of the borough To supply prop
| er means of carrying off the surface
! water. The evidence of the plaintiff
| itself showed that the flooding occurred
| during an unusually heavy storm
| George NJ. Watson attorney for the
! defense, argued that no negligence on
| the part of the borough had been
| shown and asked for a non-suit. Judge
! Gunster adopted his views and granted
| the motion. Pressman was offered
$4OO to settle the case, some time ago,
| but refused.
In the case of II. \. Depuy against
]. ID. Compton, the jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff i'm the full
! amount of his claim. He sued on a
| S1O0 judgment note.
The case of II. s. Wurden against
Mary Connell was given to the jury by
! Judge Purdy in the afternoon. No
verdict had been reached at adjourn
| ment.