The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-01-10
ten TREES CAUSE
"A COSTLY DISPUTE
COURT FEES AMOUNT TO OVER
A THOUSAND DOLLARS.
In A, ltion to This, Three or Four
Law ,ers Have Been Collecting
Fees from the Disputants for
Seven Years-It Is the Old Story
of Hard-headed Neighbors willing
to go to Any Extreme to Win a
Law suit-Iuzerne. Day in the
Superior Court.

1t was Luzerne day In the superior
court yesterday, and a number OF in
teresting cases. as usual, were present.
ed. One of the most interesting OF
these was the timber-cutting case of
Jasper N. Culver, appellant. against
George Hazlett. The value of the
trees alleged to have been illegally
taken Is $19.75. The costs in the suit
so far-and this does not mean law.
yers' fees-amount to $1,100. Judge
Halsey, at the last trial of the case
Offered to pay the amount in dispute
II the parties would settle the costs.
His offer was refused.
Culver and Hazlett own adjoining
farms. In 1898 Hazlett began 90 clear
his land and in doing SO went be-
yond his oN n line and cut ten trees
from Culver's land. Culver brought
su land the case has been before the
&C its ever since.
the first trial of the case In 1898,
hror died after the case had been
for six days and the trial had to
! postponed. In 1898 it came up again
nd after another six days trial, a
,'erdict for the defendant was award
d. From this Culver appeals. Con-
letting lines made by surveyors fifty
or sixty years ago cause the dispute.
John McGahren and 8. j. Strauss pre-
sented the case for the appellant. and
p. A. O'Boyle and Edward A. Lynch
argued for the appellee.
FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE.
]. B. Woodward and Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Rush Trescott, repre-
senting the appellant, and Edward A.
Lynch, the appellees. argued the case
of the commonwealth, appellant,
against George L. Llewellyn and Will
liam Drury, quarter sessions. Luzerne
county.
The defendants We're arrested for
maintaining public nuisance. 1t was
alleged that they erected buildings on
public alley in West Pittston, which
p. j. Wisner had laid out through
his lands. At the trial of the case,
the court directed n verdict for the
defendants on the ground that the
commonwealth had failed to show that
the alley had been accepted by the
borough.
One of the assignments of error was
that the trial judge erred in prevent
ing the district attorney from stand
ing aside Jurors. The defendants at
torneys said in their argument that
this is not the whole truth. The dis
trict attorney. they say, stood aside
a number of Jurors. but when it ap-
peared to the court that he was car
rying the thing too far he was
estopped. This. it was contended. was
the proper procedure, as the law di
rects that court shall supervise the
setting aside of Jurors.
The appeal of Robert w. Sunles and
others from the Judgment of the Luz
zerne common pleas confirming the re-
port Of viewers in the matter of Wild
ening William street in Pittston, was
argued by G. F.. Bohan for the appel
lants, and James l.. Morris. for the
appellees.
VIEWERS ASSESSED DAMAGES.
A triangular piece was cut off the
Carrie WOddell lot where it projected
on William street near the Fulton
street intersection. Viewers assessed
5000 damages against the city and $500
against the thirty-seven properties on
William street nearest the point where
the Improvement was made. These
property holders appeal on the groun
that their properties do not directly
abut on the improvement and conse-
quently are not liable for q share of
the cost.
The question of whether dead
obligor's estate is liable for promis-
sorry note when the other obligor is
solvent was presented in the appeal
of George Hughes, executor from the
Judgment of the orphans court of LII
zerne in the estate of James Hughes.
The decedent became a joint obligor
with his brother, Charles Hughes, on
two notes of 5000 and $500 respectively
given William TT Saarfosv T,o,os