The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-01-24
GOLD MINE AND
COAL MINE FIGURE
TWO SUITS GROW OUT OF DEALS
IN THESE MINERALS.
from L. M. Bunnell Money Sunk
in New Hampshire Gold Mine.
A Scranton Coal Deal in Which
There Was a Misunderstanding
A $40 Case Which Has Been in
Court for Nearly Fifteen Years.
Jurors Fined.

n gold mine, or an alleged gold mine,
figures in an interesting suit being
tried before Judge Edwards in court
room No. 2. The plaintiff is George A.
Winans and the defendant, Attorney
L. NJ. Bunnell. The mine is located in
Woodsnell, N. II.
Mr.. Bunnel it appears secured an
option on the mine and induced Mr..
Winans to become associated with him
In its operation. The partnership agree
ment was to the effect that Mr.. Winans
should pay the expenses of operating
and share equally in the profits. He
advanced S1,325 to Mr.. Buunell to meet
the preliminary expenses of assays and
the like. They failed to come to terms
with the owners of the mine, through
some reason or another not explained
and the option expired.
Mr.. Winans now AYERS that it was
expressly stipulated that the expenses
should not exceed $500 and he sues
to recover the difference between that
figure and the amount he advanced.
Such moneys as were given Mr. Bun
nell, over and above $500, he alleges,
were simply loans for which he was to
be reimbursed when the mine COM
menced to make them millionaires.
NO FIXED LIMIT.
Mr.. Bunnell says there was no fixed
limit to the expenses and he holds that
all that Is required Of him is to show
that the expenditures he made were
necessary and reasonable. Among the
expenditures he puts forward in offset
to Mr.. Winans' claim is SO a day for his
own services in looking after the pre-
liminary work looking to the purchase
and operation of the mine.
Across the corridor in the superior
court room Judge John w. Simonton.
of Harrisburg, is presiding in a coal
mine case. 1t is the suit of Dolphin &:
Dimmick against ]. II. Steel. The
plaintiffs sue TO recover a two-sevenths
interest in the West Ridge Coal COM
pany
1t is alleged on their part that they
secured the interests of the Providence
and Church coal companies, and con-
troll of a number of leases on conven-
lent coal lands, and that Mr.. Steel bar
gained to take these. secure other
leases and form a company in which
Messrs. Dolphin and Dimmick were to
have a one-seventh interest each.
The West Ridge Coal company was
formed shortly afterwards with Mr..
Steel as one of it's leading men. The
plaintiffs waited upon him and de-
manded their two-sevenths interest in
the company. He would not recognize
their claims, alleging that the deal in
which they were to figure had fallen
through, and that the West Ridge
company was q concern altogether for
eign to the one which they were to
have an interest in.
QUESTION AT ISSUE.
The question at issue is whether or
not the deal in question did fall
| through. Mr.. Steel ayers that the ad-
| ditional leases which they were to
secure were unobtainable and that for
| this reason the company which he was
! to form with Messrs. Dolphin and Dim
| mick as stockholders was not feasible.
A jury was out at adjourning time
| on a $40 case, which as been hanging
! fire in the courts nearly fifIe-n years.
| Two old and prominent Scranton bus
| mess houses are the parties to the suit,
| Thomas +. Leonard being the plaintiff
and George II. Clark and Company the
| defendants.
Leonard Brothers, of which the plain
! tiff is successor, did some plumbing
| for the defendants, for which bill Of
| $40 was rendered. The defendants dis
puted the bill on the ground that some
of the material used in the work was
not of the style and character called
for in the contract.
In 1884 suit was instituted. Several
years passed before it got a place on
the trial list. Then came the dissol-
ution of partnership in the Leonard
firm and the long drawn-out controVer-
sy over the receivers report, which
kept the question of the proper plain
tiff TO the suit in doubt. Finally when
it was settled and T. f. Leonard came
into control of the accounts the suit
was called up. The second series Of
delays in getting the case on the trial
list and then in shape for trial fol-
lowed, and now fifteen years after the
| suit was instituted and seventeen years
or so after the bill was rendered, the
suit is i'm a jury's hands The COM
pound interest at 8 per cent. for the
period the bill has been hung up on
the amount involved would about equal
the principal.
VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS.
A verdict for the plaintiff in the full
amount of his claim, $3l5O, was rend'
| cred in the wage case of Peter Dough-
erty against John w. Kelly.
A verdict for the plaintiff was en-
tered by agreement in the interpleader
case of Daniel Waterspiel against the
Dickson Brewing company.
BY agreement, a verdict OF $175 in
favor of the plaintiff was directed to
| enter in the case of Mrs. Mary Heath
against the city of Scranton. 1t is one
of the Ninth street damage cases, grow
ing out of the construction Of the Rob-
inson street retaining wall.
The cases of Michael May against w.
T. Aitken, Montrose Barnard against
Annie Barrett, and NJ. w. LOTUS
against Duncan McMurtie were nom
suited because Of the failure of the
plaintiffs TO put in an appearance.
The trespass suit of Bridget Nc
Nichols against the city of Scranton
was referred to Attorney John II. Bon
ner for adjudication.
The following cases We're marked set
tied and off list: Laura Breese against
Samuel Breese and others; j. C. Tuttle
against Joseph Roos; Alphonso Apos-