The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-09-14
HAS NO AUTHORITY
FOR INTERFERENCE
COURT, 1T IS CLAIMED, HAS NO
JURISDICTION IN CASE.
Winton School Board Says That the
Law Gives Them Discretionary
Power in Awarding Building Con-
tracts and That No Court in the
Land oan Step in and Tell Them
Which is the Lowest Responsible
Bidder'-other Matters That Came
UP in Court.

a final hearing was had yesterday
morning before Judge Edwards in the
Winton school board case. Watson Il
Diehl appeared for the complainants
and ]. II. Burns and James j. O'Malley
for the defendants.
This is the equity suit brought by
Eugene Taylor and Charles II. Burnett
to enjoin the Winton school board from
accepting the highest bid on the erec-
tion of new school house.
Collins & Brennon bid slO.S15; Dun
more Lumber company, S10,715; Peck
Lumber company, $3.50. A majority
of the board voted to award the con-
tract to Collins & Brennan and that
firm has had the foundation walls
built The complainants came to court
and secured a preliminary injunction
restraining the contractors from pro-
ceeding with the work and a rule on
the board to show cause why it had not
accepted the lowest bid
After a couple of weeks the board
came into court and, admitting that it
had not acted the part of wisdom,
asked to have the injunction made per-
manent and saying that it had rescind-
ed its former action and awarded the
contract to the Peck Lumber company.
After another couple of weeks the
board rescnded it's resembling resolu-
tion and came into court again, asking
to have the equity case reinstated.
Judge Edwards agreed and yesterday
the arguments were heard.
COMPLAINANTS ALLEGATION.
The complainants could only allege
that the action Of the board was un-
wise. The defendants answered that a
| school board can do as it pleases in
| such matters, under authority of the
! law which gives it power to award a
contract to the lowest responsible bid
! der"
That's what the board did. the de-
| PENDANTS argued, and no court in the
land, they claimed, could interfere with
! their exercise of their discretion as to
which was the lowest responsible bid
| der. Whether or not a court of equity
| can SO interfere is what Judge Ed
! wards will have to decide. He expects
| to give his adjudication before the
| close of the present week. SO that work
on the school house may be proceeded
| with.
In an equity suit filed with Prothono-
tary Copeland. yesterday, Mrs. Mary
| Early, of Dunmore. lays unusual and
interesting grounds for her prayer fol
! relief.
She seeks to have court cancel a
mortgage on her $500 lot on Grove
street, held by Michael Kane, alleging
that the mortgage was obtained
through deceit and fraud and without
any valuable consideration.
In 1892. when she was about to be
come the wife of John Early, she
was waited upon by her fiance anC
Michael Kane and advised to sign over
her property to some trusted friend, as
it was liable to be seized upon 10y
Early's creditors when she became hi!
wife. She mortgaged it to Kane.
LEFT HER HUSBAND.
Six months ago she left her husband
because of alleged cruel treatment anC
has since instituted proceedings to Sc
cure divorce from him. Thrown on he
own resources, she sought to recove
control of her property but Kane woult
not remove the incumbrance. To com
/, pei him to do this, she brings the suit
She says she verify believes tina
there was an intent on Early's part t
deceive her and that Kane was awar
of it at the time.
Vague and indefinite boundaries, re
sulting from carelessness of old-tim
surveyors and landowners, gave Judg
Edwards a hard nut to crack. 1t cam
to him in the shape of a suit betwee
w. G.. Miller as plaintiff and j. W
: Cure and George w. Cramer. defend
ants. Both parties derived title to Ian
} in Blakely from Ira Hartwell. In max
ing the deed to Miller for a 10 acr
plot, Hartwell reserved a part of
! known as the Oakley coal bed bound
ed by adjoining properties on two side
; and con the remaining sides by tn
outcrop of the conglomerate rock
T containing four and one-half acre
y more or less"
: LAND IT CONTAINED.
= This reserved plot was later sold h
Hartwell to the defendants and II
map of it that he gave them Shove
it to contain about eighteen acres.
The task set before Judge Edward
, was to fix the disputed boundary. tt
c plaintiff showed second ledge of col
glomerate to exist that would narro
the plot down to about -four and ont
n half acres" but it was not a well-d
e fined ledge and in the opinion of Il
Il Judge was not taken as a boundary.
The unbroken clearly defined ledg
= enclosing the eighteen acres We're a
G cepted by the court as the boundar
e that were meant Natural monumen
It are to be preferred to all other meal
y of determining boundaries, the judi
u decided.
The equity suit of James and Phil
II Henry Smith against James and Add