The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-04-01
ARGUMENT
COWESNEXT
Final Hearing In the Scanlan Bond Case
at POttSyine To-day.
ALL The EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED.
Counsel Opposing the Boldsmen's Applica-
tion to open the Judgment Called Wit
nesses only to Contradict tho
Evidence Of Mr scanlsu.

The long drawn out hearing ON the appH.
cation Of the sureties on Tax Receiver NJ. J.
Scanlau's 1896 bond to have the judgments
opened is concluded at l8lt After Commis-
sioner Moore writes out the evidence taken
the counsel in the case will agree upou
a day for argument aud then the
rules ON both the 1895 aud 1896 bonds will
pass into the hands Of the court for "a decis-
ion as to whether the Judgments shall be
opened.
The witnesses in attendance at the hearing
to-day were Mcssrs. T. r Edwards. d. X.
James, Frank Hanna. James j.. and Martin
Dewitt, George Ploppert w. j. Watkins and
Jacob Btmberger. Mr.. Scaulan was present.
aud also Michael Mellet, one Of the sureties.
The lawyers in attendance were Hon. James
B. Reilly, A. W. Schalk Nicholas Ueblic<
aud J. K. Coyle Esqs., for the bondsmen. NJ.
NJ Burke, Esq, solicitor for the borough.
and John f. Whalen, B,q associate counsel.
representing the Taxpayers Association.
The latter conducted the examination of
witnesses ON the boroughs side
The main force to-day was directed by the
bondsmen's counsel to show that the 1896 bor-
ough duplicate was not delivered to Mr. Scan.
Ian until December, 1887, while Mr.. WhaIen
directed his efforts to contradiction Of Mr..
Scanlan on that point
The first witness was w. J Watkins, who
was called to identify records in the Borough
Council ledger and minute book. the purpose
ol the counsel for the bondsmen being to
show that the 1895 borough duplicate was
only ordered to be written in the summer of
1897. The witness also identified statements
IN the books copied from reports furnished by
the finance committee Of Council.
Mr.. Scanlan was next called to the witness
stand, and remained there for some time.
tie made a correction of testimony previously
given ana said 1t was not the school duplicate
Tor 1896 that be had in his hands for few
days at time, loaning it to Mr.. Dewitt in the
intervals, but the county duplicate. He then
swore that he did not have the 1896 school
duplicate in his hands until September. 1897
ana the 1895 borough duplicate did not reach
him until December, 1897 Mr.. Scaplan did
not recollect that Mr. Hanna brought him
the 1896 duplicate in January, 1897. nor did
he recollect that Councilman d. K James
brought to him the 1896 borough duplicate.
He said that he believed he cot the
duplicate in the Council ehamber: that the
finance committee, of which Mr.. James was
a member, was in session and the duplicate
was there. He was told he could have il.
aud he took it. Mr.. Scanlan also said he he.
lieved he received the 1896 school Duplicate
in the Directors room. He didn't know lust
when, but it was sometime after the 1896 ex-
oneatiOn list was gone over in June. 1897
He thought he received it in September,
1897.
Mr.. Scanlan stated that three times he told
the finance committee of Council that his
1895 exoneratiOn lists were ready for them
whenever they were ready to take them.
The last time he told this to the committee
he was told to hold them until Council got
through with his 1895 lists. In the mean
time Council took up Collector Burke's 1897
lists But in response to questions by Mr..
Whalen, Mr. Scanlan admitted that these Of
ters were made after Council began proceed
ings on the 1895 and 1896 bonds, and that he
never made any formal tender of the exon.
GRAFTON lists at a Council meeting, or to the
finance committee in regular session. He had
simply told them that the lists were ready.
Q. Notwithstanding you did not get this
1896 borough duplicate you went on and
made collection of taxes as if you had a
duplicate
A. Yes, SIR
Mr.. Whalen called attention to the fact
that, while Mr.. Scanlsn contended that he
did not receive the 1896 borough duplicate
until December, 1897 the petition to open
the Judgment states that il was not received
until September, 1897. Mr. Reilly said the
bondsmen, and not Mr.. Scanlan, made the
petition, and the dates were based upon such
| information as they could CLEAN from a re-
view of the Council minute book. Mr..
Whalen replied that. nevertheless, the peti.
tiOn confirmed the stand taken by the Dor.
ough that the duplicate was delivered in
| September, 1897.
On examination by Mr., Reilly, Mr.. Scan
Ian said the items Of 81 600, Jan. 8, 1897 SIS
900, Feb. A, 1897, and 81 500, Mar. 5. 1897,
were principally made up of moneys collected
on the school duplicate of 1896, but the
whole amount was credited to the 1895 du-
plicate. He was collecting money on both
duplicates at the the time. The money was
credited to 1895 in the published statement.
By Mr. Whalen well there is no obiec-
tion to that settlement, is there, by your
A. No.
Q. Whatever was DONE was done with your
knowledge and consent?
A. Yes, sir.
When asked if he had anything to show
whether any of this money was collected on
the 1896 duplicate Mr.. Scanlan replied "Only
l was collecting money for 1896 and 1895 at
that time"
Mr.. Whalen Did you collect taxes in 1894
and apply them to the 1898 duplicate2
Yes, sir.
Then l suppose when you collected on the
1898 duplicate, you made that good for 1894
Mr. Schalck That's slip of the tongue.
Mr. Whalen Not slip of the tongue at all;
let him answer the question. Mr.. Scanlan
finally answered Yes, l guess l did" With
outstanding 1893 money collected he made
good what he had taken from 1894.
Counsel for the bondsmen rested and
Councilman d. r. James was called by Mr.
Whalen. He swore positively that in Septem
ber 1897, he delivered the 1896 borough du,
plcate to Mr.. Scaulan, at the latter's office
that the delivery was made Immediately
after the Council meeting on the first Thurs
| day of September
Martin j. Dewitt testified that he wrote
the 1896 school duplicate and delivered it tC
the School Board in the third week of Janu
ary, 1897
Il, K. Edwards, former School Director
]