The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-04-27
DEMANDS PAY FOR
PLAYING CHECKERS
ISAAC sIDEBorToM's ODD CLAIM
AGAINST sHAFER ESTATE.
Wants Court to Grant Him Remu-
neration for Having Spent His
Time in Catering to an Old Mans
Entertainment by Acting as His
Opponent in Checkers-Poor Board
Quo Warranto Argued - Eight
More Divorces Granted-other
Doings Of the Day in Court.

More Divorces Granted-other |
Doings OF the Day in Court.
Court was Yesterday asked to grant
a man pay for playing checkers.
The request was presented in the ex-
ccptions TO the report of the auditor
in the estate of John Shafer, deceased,
late of Dunmore. which came UP in
argument court before Judges Arch
bald. Edwards and Kelly.
Shafer was an aged man who died
two years ago leaving an estate thai
inventoried at $4,000. His nearest heirs
are a half-sister and half-brother in
this country, and the children of an
other half-sister living in Germany
During the last three and a half
years Of Shafcrs life he was looked af-
ter to some extent by Mr.. and Mrs.
Isaac Sidebottom, who with Shafer oc-
cupied a double house in Dunmore, be-
longing to the latter When Shafer
died the Sidcbottoms put in claim of
tl,S00 for board and care given the de-
cedant Mrs. Sidebottom claimed S25
month for doing his housekeeping,
and Mr.. SidebottOm demanded like re-
muneration for certain services he reg
ularly performed, the most exacting of
which was the playing of checkers with
the old man almost every day for hours
and hours at stretch. He found no
amusement in it. he AYERS. and did IL
solely for the old mans entertainment
and consolation. He also went to the
postoffice after his mail. and on several
occasions ran other crrands for him.
He did no other work during the three
and half years the old man lived with
them.
CLAIM REJECTED.
Colonel +. l.. Hitchcock. the auditor,
refused to allow the claim of the Side
bottoms and they took an appeal. Col
onel Herman Osthaus argued their side
OF the case and Attorney 7. y. Wells
and S. h. Price appeared in support OF
the auditors report.
1t developed In the argument that
the law would warrant an allowance be-
ing made for Sidebottom's checker
playing on the score Of it being enter
tainment provided for the old mans
we'll being, but the defense contended
it was not clearly. explicitly and pos
| itively" proven as the law demands.
| that the service was performed. The
whole claim OF the Sidebottoms was
| thrown out by the auditor on this last
mentioned grounds. They could not
| testify in the case to the agreement
| alleged to have been made between
: them and the old man because of the
statute sealing the lips of the surviv.
| ing party to a contract. On this ac-
count the Sidebottoms could only prove
| cd ipS Of hri
ing to rely for their evidence on par
ties who occasionally visited tho house.
An interesting opinion is expected from,
one Of the judges.
When the case of the commonwealth
ex rel John ]. Murphy against r. j.
| Dickert came up for argument on the
| answer II the respondent and tho plain
tiff's demurrer. Judge Edwards sug-
| Ccsted that the case be settled def
! nitely i'm all it's features, and after
some discussion, il was ordered tnat
| the respondent make specific answer
| within ten days, and that the case De
tried before judge without a jury.
! QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED
The question now to be determined
is whether or not Mr. Murphy was
elected. Judge Edwards, in the prev.
ious case. decided that poor director.
should be elected By the people. in.
stead Of being appointed by the presi.
dent judge. He, also, threw out ten,
tatively that 1899 was the proper veal
in which TO hold an election. The
supreme court stained this finding
Mr.. Murphy was balloted for in 1877
in the Eleventh Twelfth, Nineteenth
nd rdc In, in Il,
spring election of 1899. He was tho
only candidate. Judge Edwards wa,
not called upon to decide whether ol
not Mr.. Murphy was elected. but Incl
dentally he called attention TO the fac
that the old South ward of Scranton
from which Mr.. Murphy claimed to b,
elected, and the Eleventh, Twelfth
Nineteenth and Twentieth wards, il
which he was balloted for. might no
, be the same Identical territory.
Tho respondent alleges that tn
, Eleventh ward was taken out of tn
old South ward and Incorporated in tn
middle ward when Scranton borough
was divided into three wards. 1t is ais
, claimed that new territory was adde'
to the remaining portion Of the oil
South ward.
, lnlS Is tne matter lUdl Is 10 De treat
cd i'm the specific answer which the re
Spondcnt is ordered 10 file. The rela
! tor will make replication to this an
on that issue the court will make de
cision. The relator claims that if h
can show he received even one vot
from any elector living anywhere with
in the limits OF what was former
the old South ward he was elected
, Should court sustain this view MI
9 Murphy will he given Mr.. Dickert'
seat.
, l. H. Burns and Mr.. Murphy au
4 peared for the rclator, and John T
!, Scragg for the respondent.
c OTHER CASES.
Other cases We're dealt with as fo
lows:
Rule Absolute Commonwealth against Fran
! Iiolgatc, rule tu remit iorfcturc; commonwealth
!, against John Bentham aud Others rule TO rem
. costs
. Rule Discharged Commonwealth against N
;, mic Brncwitz rule 10 remit forfeiture
i Argued Matter OF tho pctiion TO make RidG
!, turnpike free from tolls, exceptions TO rcpor
a commonwealth against Anthony Gillespie, III
=. ior a new trial; commonwealth against Ma
. Sayigc, rule to remit forfeiture; matter of Il
- estate Of Philip Englc, exceptions 10 auditor
= report; william Stoddard against Old For
e school district. rule for judgment; W. NJ, Qui,