The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-09-26
COAL COMPANY WINS
IN SPRINGER CASE
JURY DECIDED IN FAVOR OF
THE PAPER TITLE.
The Land in Dispute Was Virtually
Valueless, But as the Title to the
Coal Beneath 1t Hinged on the
Outcome, the Case Was of Much
Importance-Second Trial of the
Ehrgood Suit Results in a Reduced
Verdict for the Plaintiff-Judge
Would Not Discharge the Jury.

In the conflict between the paper title
and the squatter sovereignty claim in
the ejectment case of the Lacoe q Shift
fer Coal company against w NJ.
Springer the jury Saturday afternoon
returned verdict In favor of the for
mer
The suit was for the surface Cf q
fourteen-acre piece of one hundred
and twenty acre plot known as the
Springer tract and located in the bor-
ough of Moosic, near the Luzerne
county line.
The land itself is practically worth
less, but parts of it are underlaid with
coal beds of unusual richness, the value
of the coal in the tract in question be-
ing at the smallest estimate $4,000.
Shiffer claims the land and coal by
right of squatter sovereignty, claiming
to have held adverse possession of it
for the last thirty years. The COM
panys title was based on deeds tracing
unbroken possession back to the time
of the commonwealth grant to the Sus-
Quehanna company in 1888.
DIsPoSEs OF COAL.
This verdict, if it stands, also dis
| poses of the claim to the underlying
| coal. Springer has a suit pending to
recover from the company the value of
the coal that has been taken from be-
meath the disputed tract, but as it is
now decided that he does not own the
land his claim to the coal will be of
little weight The importance Of the
| litigation may be understood when it
| is known that court informed Mr..
| Springer that a half million dollar bond
II l,f H. l.,
allowed to institute injunction proceed
| ings to restrain the company from min
! ing the coal.
| Major Everett Warren, James H.
| Torrey and Frank Wheaton, of Wilkes
Barre, are the company's attorneys. I.
II. Burns and NJ. J. Martin represent
| Mr. Springer.
After being out since noon Thursday
the jury in the case of f. ]. Ehrgood
against the Moscow Water company
returned a verdict Saturday morning
| in favor of the plaintiff in the sum Of
| $400. At the opening of court the jury
came in and reported that it was un-
able to agree. Judge Archibald, who
was on the bench at the time, informed
the jury that this was the second trial
of the case; that it has been before the
courts for five years, and that if it was
not disposed of at this time 1t would
have to be tried again, entailing addi-
tiOnal expenses to the county and the
| litigants He also advised them that
if few of the jurors were holding out
| against the others. it was their duty
| to reconcile their views to those of the
majority, if they could conscientiously
| do so. The jury retired and in half an
hour came back with a verdict.
SUIT FOR DAMAGES.
1t was a suit to recover for damages
done to the plaintiff by reason of the
water company diminishing the flow of
| Roaring Brook to such an extent as to
interfere with the operations of his grist
mill. At the former trial of the case
verdict of $500 in favor Of the plain
tiff was rendered. e. c. Newcomb rep
resented Mr.. Ehrgood and OBren &
Kelly the water company.
In the suit of C. 7. Jadwin against r
+. Hurley to recover commissions or
a real estate sale the jury decided in
favor of the plaintiff for the full amount
of his claim, $29S.S2. The verdict is sub
ject, however, to Judge Loves decision
on the reserved law question as tC
license, issued by the city treasurer. is
valid. The defense contended that the
county treasurer is the proper party tC
issue brokers' licenses.
| The case of p. H. Coyne against the
city of Scranton was referred to NJ. j
| Ruddy.