The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-11-22

to which the statute OF limitation was
urged. The jury after being out for
half an hour returned a verdict for the
full amount of the defendants claim.
DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR.
Immediately after the Fahrfb case
went to the jury the case of j. S.
Miller against d. NJ. Williams was
put on trial. The defendant did not
put in an appearance and a verdict
was rendered in favor Of the plaintiff
for S909.27, the full amount of the
claim, with interest.
The case of f. NJ. Cobb against Will
liam Price was reported settled and
the case of John Meyers against the
Lackawanna mills was continued.
In the case of Salim Elias against
A. Tanhauser, verdict for the plain
tiff in the sum of $299.95 was rendered.
verdict was returned yesterday
morning in the case of j. X. Neagley
against John A. Wood. A verdict for
the plaintiff for $3S.77 was taken in the
case of the Butler company against
Alice d. Bingham.
Yesterday morning a verdict was re-
turned in favor of Martin Cawley for
S163.6S, the full amount of his claim
against the Rushbrook Water COM
pany. The case was put on trial Mon
day.
There was no defense offered in the
case of J. Kaufman against A. Bres-
chel and verdict of $119.S5 for the
plaintiff was taken.
SUIT AGAINST CITY.
Before Judge Purdy the trial of the
case of Mrs. Jane Reap against the
city of Scranton consumed a good part
of yesterdays session. Mrs. Reap
owns a property on West Market street
close to the bridge spanning Leach's
creek, and she alleges that through
the negligence of the city in failing to
deep a drain open her place has been
repeatedly flooded and made almost
uninhabitable. The house is below the
level of the street.
The city alleges that the husband of
the deceased, Michael Reap, before his
death recovered $500 damages from the
city for the injuries for which his
widow now wants to recover. The
jury will go to Providence this morn
ing and view the premises.
Before Judge r. w. Archibald in the
main court room yesterday the case of
Mrs. Matilda Fahrig, Administrative
against Eugene Schimpff was tried and
a verdict returned in favor of Mrs.
Matilda Fahrig for $2,09494, the full
amount of her claim, with interest.
Both plaintiff and defendant reside
in this city, Mr.. Schimpff being en-
gagged in the jewelry business, and prior
to the trouble which resulted in yes
terday's lawsuit, the two families were
on very intimate terms. The case was
tried several months ago and the jury
disagreed. The plaintiff was repre-
sented yesterday by Attorneys George
S. Horn and c. II. Soper, and the de-
fendant by Attorneys James H. Tor
rey and Joseph OBrien.
From what was brought out on the
trial Of the case yesterday it appears
that in 1890 the plaintiffs husband
died, leaving his financial affairs in
rather bad shape. Some time before
his death he bought lot on Clay ave-
nue. in this city from Jacob Bryant, but
1t was not paid for and after his death
his wife applied to the Orphans court
for permission to sell the property, with
a view to getting the estate in better
| shape. The necessary permission was
given and the property was sold by
Mrs. Fahrig, as administrative to Mr..
Schimpff for S1,96O. Some time later
Mr.. Schmpff secured deed from Mrs.
! Fahrig, but the purchase money was
| never paid and yesterdays suit was for
the purpose of collecting 1t with inter-
| est.
WHAT DEFENSE SAID.
The defense attempted to show that
the sale was made in pursuance to an
arrangement between Mrs. Fahrig and
Mr.. Schimpff, he merely acting as trus-
tee to protect the value of the land
He alleges that the understanding was
| that he was to sell the land again and
turn the proceeds over to Mrs. Fahrig.
He did sell the land, but did not Sc
cure as high price for 1t as he bid
at the Orphans court sale He offered
| to turn this amount over to Mrs. Fab
rig, but she would not accept it, alleg-
ing that she wanted the amount he bid
at the Orphans court SALE Court
would not admit evidence Of this kind,
on the ground that Mrs. Fahrig had
no power to enter into such an agree
me0t as that suggested by Mr..
Schimpff.
Debarred from this Defense the at
torneys for Mr.. Schlmpff raised the
point that the statute of limitations
barred the collection of one-half Of the
amount claimed. To Offset this the
plaintiff offered testimony of admis-
slons on the part of Mr. Schimpff that
would set aside the statutory rights