The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-01-12

An important case, involving the
ownership OF property which at one
time brought half million dollars was
called before Judge Gunstcr in No. 2
at the opening of the morning session,
yesterday. 1t is the ejectment suit of
the Hillside Coal and Iron company
| against T.. A. Heermans, George Wat
res, jr, f. w. Fleitz and Frank r.
Okell and the property i'm question is
the w. |. Pitt plot in Blakely.
The trial, yesterday, was a mere for
mality preliminary to taking to the
supreme court an appeal from a deci-
sion of Judge Archibald on a lateral
feature of the case.
The land originally belonged to II. S,
Pierce. He sold it in 1872 for S1l7,125
to l.. II. Watson. trustee, of New York
He afterwards sold it to the North
Mountain Coal company for S5Ol, 300.
The North Mountain Coal company was
merged into the Hillside Coal and Iron
company and in this way the Hillside
company claims title.
In 1872 William l. Pitt entered into
possession of the land as squatter,
the Hillside company brought a suit in
ejectment against him. The case was
allowed to lie dormant. III 1895, Pitt
sold his alleged right in the land to the
! present defendants. In June last, these
defendants were permitted to substan-
tiate themselves for Pitt as defendant
! in the ejectment suit. Thereupon they
moved to have the suit non-prossed on
,n lot fnt of
| pressed it with the diligence required
by law, and that when they purchased
! from Pitt they had reason to believe
that the company had abandoned the
suit, inasmuCh as it had made no move
in it for fourteen years.
NON-PROS WAS REFUSED.
| Judge Archibald refused to allow this
non-pros. holding that there was no de-
cision to base the defendants claim
and indicating that in the absence of
! any definite law on the subject, he
| would hesitate TO allow non pros. in
such case unless a period of twenty
one years had elapsed.
! The defendants desire to take an ap-
| peal from this decision and Ia do 50
1t was necessary to have an adiudica-
| tion of the suit in ejeCtment.
! The trial consisted merely in the
! presentation of the facts in the case
by Judge GuGster to a jury with bind
| ing instructions to find for the plaintiff,
| on the ground that the defendant, Pitt,
had been in occupancy less than twen-
| ty-one years. IIX-Judge Knapp repre-
sented the plaintiff and A. A. Nosburg,
! the defendants.
In the case of Mr.. Wrobelewski
| against Archibald borough, the jury,
yesterday morning. returned verdict
in favor of the plaintiff in the sum Of
$500 Wrobelewskl sued to recover for
/ the value of horse which broke
through a patch of ice on one of the
/ borough streets and fractured one of
| its legs. The plaintiff averred that
! there was a hole in the street over
which the ice formed The defense al
leges now that the plaintiffs witnesses
| SWore the hole In the ground. An ef-
| fort Will be made to secure q new trial.
! The case of Ellen Taylor against the
city Of Scranton which was called
| Tuesday afternoon, was on all day be-
| fore Judge Love. The jury spent the
| greater part of the morning in an eX-
| animation OF the premises. Mrs. Tay-
| lor, as explained at length, yesterday,
| sues for damages to- her property, al
| legged to have resulted from the build
ing Of the retaining wall on Robinson
| and Ninth streets.
| In the suit of Jesse s. Carter, admin
istratriX, against NJ. Mullen. a. r.
Raub, DIR. +. IL. Throop estate. and
George Kinbaclt. bondsmen for Thomas
! Stewart, administrator Of the estate Of
Jesse Stewart, Judge Purdy directed 4
verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of
| $9,S00l2. subject to reserved powers
| which will come UP at argument court
! The defendants attack the validity of
the bond and the proceedings to re-
cover on it. These law points will de-
eide the case. Welles & Torrey repre-
sent the plaintiff, and Messrs. Lowry,
Newcomb and Warren, the defendants.
The jury in the Mill machinery case
of Charles Hill against s. c. Whitmore
was charged by Judge Purdy at the
opening Of the morning session. After
four hours deliberation a verdict was
agreed upon, but as court had ad-
! journed it was sealed.