The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-10-27

many men In the place at the time. On
sunday, April 20, they went to the hotel
again, but were evidently known, and
could not gain admission. though many
other men went In and out while they
were there.
7. S. Hufiling swore that on Sunday,
September 2. he went to Gerrity's place
and got In. but the bartender refused
to sell him anything. There were many
men In the place at the time. No tes-
timony was offered on behalf of Ger
rity. III
With reference to the revocn L IN OF
the license of John Lisk, of 3i6 Linden
street. T. 3. Hufflng swore that on
Sunday September ., with Frank KAT
lnsky, he visited Lisk's place and
purchased and drank beer. a number
of men were present at the time in the
place and were drinking. No evidence
was offered on the part of Lisl.
Robert Wilson swore that on Sun
day, July 90 he visited the place Of
Albert Buchta. at 1901 Lloyd street, AMI
purchased beer from Buchta. who was
behind the bar. II. s. Huffling and
Arthur Keene were with him and cor
roborated what he said. Buchta did
not deny their statements.
THE JOHNSON CASE.
T. s. Huffling was the principal wit
ness against Mrs. Flora johnson, who
runs hotel on Penn avenue, between
Linden and Mulberry streets. On Sun
day, September 90. the witness entered
the place through the side door and,
going to the bar, was served with
glass of beer. which he paid for. There
was a man behind the bar at the time
waiting on customers. and Wolf John
son, husband of the proprietrix, was
also about the place with a bartender's
apron on him. There were thirteen
men in the barroom at the time.
Robert Wilson testified that he en-
tered the hotel while Huff1ing was
there. He saw that he was recognized
and would not be able to get anything
to drink. so he walked to the bar and
took a sip Of the liquid Huffling had
purchased, to satisfy himself it was
lager beer. 1t was beer. Nothing was
offered in behalf of Mrs. johnson.
Fred Harper swore that on Sunday,
September %, he purchased beer in the
hotel of Mrs. Jennie Brink, Of the Sixth
ward of Dunmore, from her husband,
were called, but none of them had ever
purchased intoxicants at the place on
Sunday. John Brink was called and
denied having sold intoxicants to Har-
per.
Judge Archibald asked the attorneys
for the Mems union if they wanted to
press the case, and Mr.. Torrey replied
that it was not one Of their cases in
the sense that it was prepared by them.
They acted on information brought to
them. he said. and they had nothing
additional to offer. This. rule was dis
charged, but in all of the other cases
the court took the papers and will hand
down it's decision with reference to
these rules later Attorneys j. H. Tor |
rey and F. f. Beers appeared for the |
Mems union in all of these cases.
RULE CONTINUED.
In the case of ]. s. McCabe and Mar |
tin O'ConnOr, consideration of the rule |
to revoke their license was continued |
until the next term. Rules to remit |
costs We're argued in three cases of the |
against p. +. Lough-
ran. In the case of the Commonwealth |
against George Hufnagel. a rule to re-
nit costs was made absolute.
There was a long and interesting ar |
yument in Orphans court on exceptions |
to the auditors report in the matter OF |
the estate of Sheffield Reynolds, late
Of West Scranton. The will left by |
Reynolds is punctuated in such man.
ner as to allow several constructions to
De reasonably put on what the deceased
wrote. The court is to give ian official
to the language of the
will.
In the matter of the estate of Dora
thea Wenzel. deceased, rule to make
egacy chargeable upon the real estate,
t was reported that the case was
settled, and it was stricken off the list.