The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-11-08

Below is the full text Of the opinion
handed down Monday by Judge II. M.
Edwards in the case of the Common
wealth against Mrs Alonzo Reynolds.
Mrs. REYNOLDS was convicted Of for
gerry and an application made for a
new trial. 1t was refused by Judge
Edwards in the following opinions:
The defendant is a married woman.
The Commoi wealth claims that in the
month of March, 1899, she went to the
Lackawanna Trust and Safe Deposit
Company bank with her husbands bank
book in her possession. The money was
deposited in her husbands name. She
informed the teller that she wanted fifty
dollars. He told her it was necessary to
secure her husbands name to a receipt
or voucher before she could draw the
money. The teller wrote a receipt and
| gave 1t to the defendant. She then left
the bank and in about ten minutes re-
turned with her husbands name signed
| to the receipt. The money was then paid
| to the defendant, she endorsing the
voucher.
| On the trial the defendant denied the
| whole transaction and introduced evil
| denCe to establish an alibi The jury be-
| lieved the testimony of the common
wealth and convicted the defendant.
| There is no complaint as to the admission
or rejection of evidence, nor as to rul-
/ ings of law except on the one main con-
! tention that married woman in forging
her husbands name is not guilty of a
/ criminal offence.
BASIS OF CONTENTION.
The sole ground on which this conten-
| ton is based Is the common law doe
| trine of the unity of a husband and wife,
sipl,f l1Ns
| blended that one cannot commit a crime
! against the property Of the other Ju-
! dicial utterances and propositions laid
down by writer's of text books in regard
| to this question are generally confined
to the offence of larceny. Sir William
| Russell Il Russell ON Crimes, star page
ID states the doctrine thus: "A fame
| covert is not guilty of felony in stealing
her husbands goods, because a husband
! and wife are considered but one person
| in law, and the husband by endowng
| his wife at the marriage with all his
| worldly goods gives her kind of inter
est in them; for which cause even a
stranger cannot commit larceny in taking
the goods of the husband by the delivery
| of the wife as he may be taking away
the wife by force and against her will
together with the goods of the husband
| Wharton and Bishop endorse the same
proposition.
We do not dispute the correctness OF
! the law as thus stated. Nor do we think
that our late enarging statutes in rela-
tion to the rights of married women
have effected any change in the common
law principle as to this question The
difficulty i'm the case at bar is that the
principle Is not applicable to the facts OF
the case. The property obtained by the
defendant by means of the forgery was
the property of the bank and not the
property of her husband. The bank is
liable to the husband for the money OBJ
! tanned by the wife. The mere statement
of this proposition is a sufficient answe,
to the claim of defendants counsel in this
! case. We can find no reason which wOul,
justify us in disturbing the verdict.
The rule for new trial is discharged
ard a new trial is refused.
The following important opinion was
also handed down Monday by Judg,
Edwards i'm the case Of the North En-.
Lumber company against A. =. O'Don
nell, rule for a new trial:
NEW TRIAL REFUSED.
The facts in this case are not in dis
pute. The court directed a verdict IL
favor Of the plaintift for the full amour
OF their claim, Sl,6l0.07. The dcfondt,n
contracted with Thomas Il Hopkins fol
the building of house. The North En-,
Lumber company, plaintif in this case
furnished large part of the materials
used in the building. Defendants con
tract with the builders had the following
clause in it: "Thomas q Hopkins shal
deliver the building) to the sal,
\. p. O'Donnell free and discharged from
all claims liens and charges whatsoever.
1t was admitted that the contract hat
not been filed in the prothonotary's Of
flee as required by the Act of June p
1896, Il. l.. 3Gg.
Defendants two points We're refused
They were as follows:
/. If the jury believe that the Norti
End Lumber company sub-contracte,
with Thomas & Hopkins to furnish tn
material for the building. and tha
Thomas & Hopkins had contracted witt
, O'Dunnel! to build a house at a pric
agreed upon between them, and thl
Thomas N Hopkins was to deliver tn
building to C'DonrCll free from all liens
claims and charges whatsoever, the Mort
End Lumber company CGnnOt maintain
lien against O'DOnneil'S building for ma
terlals furnished by them under con
tract with Thomas e. Hopkins,
, =. Under the law and the evidence tn
verdict must be for O'Donnell, the de
fendant.
Counsel for defendant advances tw
, propositions: % that the claim in tn
, contract as TO liens is Of such a characte
as to prevent the filing of lien by a sub
contractor or material man; (2) That tn
, Act Of June 26, 1895, is unconstitutional.
LAST PROPOSITION.
We shall discuss the last proposltiCl
first. In the case of Waters vs.. Wolf g
al, lG2 Pa. 1913, the Act Of June s. 1891
=. l.. 225, requiring the written conscn
of the sub-contractor in order to bind hin
by a stipulation i'm the contract bctwee
the original contractor and owner tina