The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-11-23

A slight experience in what copy
editor has to contend with was the
lot of Judge Archibald yesterday in
presiding over the eJectment case or
Minnie Weber, now Minnie York,
against John Weber, jr., Minnie Kief-
er, John r. Jones, John II. Hughes,
Mollie Weber, Joseph Weber, Celia
Weber and Lizzie Howell.
The parties are heirs of the late John
Weber of Taylor, the plaintiff being
granddaughter, the others being sons
or daughters or their heirs. The ex-
ecutors placed the present defendants
In possession of the testators' real es-
tate. The granddaughter's reading of
the will made her believe she and not
they were the residuary legatees, and
she brought suit to secure possession
of the property, which is valued at
$4,000
This is the disputed clause in the
will on which the case hinged:
1 give all real estate to
my dear wife, Tracie Webbcr, for life,
and after her DEATH to my granddaugh-
ter, Minnie Webber, of Hyde Park, said
county and state, [ give and bequeath
the sum of two hundred dollars to be
paid to her on attaining the age of u
years, If living at that time. But If not
living then my will is that the said sum
of two hundred dollars shall sink into
and become and I've rart of the residue
of my personal estate.
JUDGES CONSTRUCTION.
Judge Archibald construed the will
to read that Mrs. York, the plaintiff,
was entitled to 5000 and no more and
directed the jury to find for the de-
PENDANTS.
John f. Scraggs and Hon. w. II. Jes-
sup represented the plaintiff Cor
nelius Cfeegy Hon. II. A. Knapp and
Joseph O'Brien appeared for the de-
PENDANTS. The will was drawn up by
a local squire.
Whether or not a dance hall bar is
realty proved to be the controlling fea-
ture in a mechanics lien case heard
before Judge Archibald.
NJ. D. Brown & Co., lumber dealers
of Olyphant, were the plaintiffs and
Theopheus Komecznv a Winton sa-
loon keeper, the defendant. The plain
tiffs claimed for s6i0.21 worth of lum-
ber delivered for the construction OF
a hall in the rear of Tomecznys sa-
loon, which is located on a property
owned by his wife. The defendant tries
to defeat the operation Of the lien by
alleging that the credit was given in
dividually to Komcczny and not to the
property. and that the wife opposed
the construction of the hall but the
main contention was that the lien was
defective in not having been filed with
in six months from the time of the
completion of the building.
Contractor Rooms, who erected the
hall testified thHt the building was fin
ished May 2S, 1898. The lien was filed
December "a, 1898, which is within q
few days of seven months after the
building is alleged to have been COM
pleted.
The plaintiffs. however, contend that
the building was not completed until
after June q, for they delivered lum-
ber there on that date, and some of it
they were able to prove went into the
construction of a bar for the dance
hall.
AN INDEPENDENT BAR.
The bar was built Independently OF
the hail. but its base was screwed to
the floor. Here came the question MS
to whether it was real or personal
property; whether II was part Of an
unfinished building or q piece Of fur,
niture or fixing for a building that was
| already complete.
Judge Archibald, in giving the case
to the jury, remarked that a dance hall
and Ear We're not as a rule far re-
|