The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-06-06
SCANLAN CASES ARGUED.
Judge Bcchtel to Decide as to Jury
Trial.

Trial.
Pottsville, June 5.-Judge Bechtel at 2 Il
o'clock began hearing the arguments on tho
rules to reopen the judgments obtained by
the borough and School Board of Shenan-
doah against NJ. j. Scanlan, tax collector
during the years 1894, 05 and '9G, and to
allow trial by jury. Former Congressman
Reilly represented the petition upon which
the proceeding is based, and a number of
bondsmen for the year 1896; Mr.. Wadinger
number of the 1895 bondsmen, and Messrs
A. W. Schalck, S. G. NJ. Hollopeter and
Nicholas Hebich various bondsmen of the
different years. John f. Whalen and NJ. NJ
Burke appeared for the borough and School
Board
Mr.. Reilly several Mondays ago said in
court that the case might involve a far
reaching decision that would, perhaps, form
statewide precedent in the matter of tax
collectors bonds; aud, judging from the
powerful arguments made by the various
lawyers great Importance is attached TO the
coming ruling Of the court
George J. Wadlinger made the opening
argument which, briefly stated, claimed that
the books of the borough show that the
officials have applied ten thousand dollars
more to the 1895 duplicate than the duplicate
amounts to.
He also eoquently argued that the act of
the borough in applying the 1895 and 1896
taxes toward the settlement of the 1894
duplicate is a clean cut misrepresentation of
the public funds and a violation of the law
Mr. Wadlinger cited authorities in support
of his position, notably 9th county reports
| page i13, and was complimented on his ad-
dress.
! Hon James b. Reilly, in behalf of Mr.
Scanlan, said, among other things, that the
sureties shall be responsible and responsible
only for the amount of the duplicate and not
| for the amount of the bond, 100000. He
charged the borough authorities with negli-
gence and claimed that unless it could be
shown the duplicate was legally made out
and that other details had been properly
attended to by the borough officials there
could be no liability on the part of the bonds
men.
He cited authorities in support of his
several contentious and declared the law re-
quired the Town Council to deliver the
duplicate on or before tho First Monday of
August, and, that if they failed to do so the
Tax Collector shall obtain a mandamus to
COMPEL them to deliver the duplicate. Mr..
Reilly contended the sureties cannot be held
to suffer for the failure of Collector Scanlan
to take such action, and he asserted that not
only was there no duplicate but that there
never was even levy of tax, thus compell-
ing the collector to wild go at it through the
town in search of taxes, calling on anybody
and everybody. He said that if his position
was sustained it would have a wholesome
effect upon the municipality and compel
officials henceforth to strictly, truly and con-
.;ciantious!-T observe the requirements of the
Law.
The argument then turned upon the claim
Of Mr.. Scanlan that there never was settle
ment of the duplicate of 1896 by the Borough
Auditors. Mr.. Reilly said there could be nc
recovery on the bond until after a settlement
(showing balance) had been made; he de-
clared no statement existed on the court
records of any balance. There was, he con.
tinued, ne difference of opinion as to the
facts, and it was admitted that whatever
Scanlan collected he turned over to the Dor
ough treasurer; and if that be So up to the
First Monday of April, 1897, he submitted t,
court that that should end this case.
Mr.. Hollopeter here called attention to the
case of the Com. VS.. Knittle, 176th Penna
reports. This case relates to the charge that
the collector took the funds of the duplicate
of subsequent year to pay Off the duplicate
of a preceding year, thus relieving tn,
} bondsmen from liability. He said the Dor
ough officials from the testimony, knew
Scanlan was using the taxes o
1895 to pay off the duplicate o
1894, and there was enough in it to show tina
this judgment should be re-opened and tn,
: bondsmen let into a trial by jury. Mr.
Reilly therefore urged that both rules to re
open the judgment be made absolute. Hi
address produced profound impression.
A. W. Schalck followed and said that MI
Wadlinger had handled the side of MI
Scanlan's sureties so well as to the lS9
duplicate that there was nothing further t
be said on that matter and Mr. Reilly's al
, gument on the 1896 duplicate mad been S
searching that he really could see nothin
new to add to it, and he therefore had t
confine himself to practically the sam
, ground. He declared that Scanlan's tern
, began on the first Monday
/ April, 1894, ending on the frs
Monday of April, 1897. and that afte
q the latter date, Seanlan had no legal author
, ity TO collect dollar of tax. He asserted
that although the duplicate should, accord
ing to the councils resolution, have been dc
ivered to Scanlan the first Monday c
August, 1896, it was not given to him unit
September 1897. There was also no warran
delivered to Scanlan. 1t was not sutlcien
that he had a county tax duplicate to 90 by
That would not do. He had no authority b.
law to collect dollar. One of the pre-
visions of the law is that the collector sha
put up notices, and how could he put up nj
tees unless he had the duplicate2 The co
lector has no authority to collect after h
. goes out of office. The bond is not for th
faithful performance of duties, but for tn
, collection of taxes, and the balance hel
= against Seanlan is only an, estimated one.
Judge Bechtel: Even though he woul
4 collect all the taxes, according to your argI
= ment, the sureties could not be held reliable
. Under l64th Penna reports and other al
. thorities, when he fles his bond he cannC
deny his liability, and when the principal
T. liable his sureties are liable.
Mr.. Reilly 1t is not always so, your homo
A Judge Bechtel; The application of the la
is different as to tax collectors bonds, froi
IN its application TO other bonds.
Mr. Schalck then reiterated that IL
", sureties Of Mr.. Scanlan could not be bel
VI liable when it was shown that the duplica
CT for 1896 had not been delivered TO him unt
s. after he had gone out Of office. His addre
le was listened to with the closest attention.
Sc Mr.. Burke followed, saying that he wOu
to make his argument brief in view Of the hou
at 4l5 O'Clock. The bond in this case is draw
al according TO the act of 1859, Schuylki
county Act, and he declared that, under tn
law, the bond should be entered up again
CT the balance due.