The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-01-04

Wernets appeal, 9i Pa. 3l9 Jeukiutown
Banks appeal i24 Pa. 337 and Keber VS..
PlOw Co. l46 Pa, 4s5 Oath against oath is
not such proof as will Justify the opening Of
a Judgment. A Judgment should not be
opened. nor the evidence submitted toa Jury
unless the written instrument be overcome
by testimony which, if believed, should
move a chancellor to decree that the note WAS
void, or should be reformed because Of
forgery. fraud OF mistake. There must be
prepOndesnce of testimony at least TO
justify the setting aside Of tie written in.
strument. English's appeal lg9 Pa, 533,
and Scott's appeal 1913 Pa. 1856. are some
what singular cases. In both these cases
the court regarded the evidence sufficient to
justify the opening Of the judgments, in
both the jury upon a trial Of the issue
found for the defendant thus seemingly
justifying the courts action. Yet the SUI
preme Court reversed both and re-instated
the judgments These cases serve to show
the care that should be exercised in opening
confessed judgments. OF course II the de.
fendant's signature is forged, the judgments
should be opened, but keeping the above rule
in view, how can the court say it is, under
the evidence before us? She swears il is and
Giblon says he did not SEQ her sign il and
cannot swear she did. Scanan swears Just
as positively she did sign the four bonds and
TOomey and Cardin so certify as TO the o.
3 and 9 bonds, Toomey as to two and Cardin
ments, with the testimony Of the officials.
and the testimony Of SCanlan, can scarcely
be turned aside by the evidence of the de.
fendant and the negative testimony Of Giblon
that he did not see her sign the bonds In
Weiss appeal 30 Pa, 1876, the court saws an
application of this kind should be made
promptly. Mrs. Mellets testimony was
taken Nov 2, 1Sgs, and she says she moved
to Shenandoah two years in Jan'y prior 10
that from Mahanoy City. She then says that
shortly after she moved she learned her
name was on the g5 bond aud she heard ii
read out Of the newspaper and all she
did was TO tell SCanlan lit was not right
and he said it would be right page 75s of
testimony Was it not her duty at that time
to act promptly? She did not notify either
the county, the borough or the school
district, but permitted the collector to pro-
ceed until Oct 3, 1898. when this application
was made. Had she acted then the Difficult
ties now existing could not have occurred
Why should she allow the matter to slumber
to the injury Of these municipalities for
period of years and until she is called upon
to answerY Did she trust Scanlan that il
would be right" or does this singular cir
cumstance tend to show she is mistaken? If
she trusted him and remained silent when
she should have spoken out promptly
and emphatoaily, why should she
be heard now, when innocent parties have
been seriously affected by this conduct of
hers If one of the two innocent parties
must suffer under these circumstances, which
should 1t be? In view of the foregoing we
feel compelled to discharge the above rules
And now, Jan 2 1899 rules discharged
By the court.
Exception for Mrs. Mellet Jan. 2 1899
o. p. BECHTEL [Seall
J Com. Pl