The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-11-20

What might not inappropriately be
called the Battle of Sandy's Field, that
long and hard-fought legal contest be-
tween the Delaware and Hudson COM
| pany and Mrs. Mary Barrett. of Car
bondale, was recalled yesterday by a
sequel suit that came up before Judge
Archibald in common pleas.
Way back in the early 30's, Alex
ander Mcdonald, familiary called
sandy" suuatted upon u six-acre
tract of land on the west side of Car
bondale and continued in possession OF
1t, undisturbed, for nearly forty years,
or until 1868, when he sold 1t to John
Nealon, eN-mayor and ex-postmaster Of
Carbondale, who In turn transferred it
to his sister, Mrs. Barrett
Mcdonald was working as a black
smith for the Delaware and Hudson
company when he went upon the land.
The surface was considered of no value
and the company let him have the full
and free use of the siX-acre plot which
| he had stakcd off and titled.
But Sandy" was knowing lad. and
when he had been on the property for
| twenty-one years. he proceeded to as
but the coal underlying it, The COM
pany evidently did not wish to force
an issue with him, for it allowed him
to continue in his possesson of the sur
face and clam to the coal. until steps
| were taken by his successors in title to
| mine the coal.
LEASED THE PROPERTY.
| This was in 1894 Mrs. Barrett had
come into possession of the property
and leased it to John l.. Harris and
| others, who sank shaft, drove a plane
| and We're about to open UP chambers
when the Delaware and Hudson COM
F, pany came upon them with an injunc-
| ton.
When the rule to make the iniunc-
tion perpetual came to be heard, Judge
Gunster decided that the company was
in the wrong and that Mrs. Barretts
| title to the coal was equally as good
as her title to the surface, and this lat
ter title the company did not very
strenuously dispute. The Supreme
court. however. three years later re-
versed Judge Gunster. and Mrs. Bar
! rett's lessees We're Oustcd from their
mine.
The contention of the Delaware and
Hudson company was that it owned Il
large tract of coal land. That the coal
under Sandy's field was a part of the
tract. The whole tract was being
worked, and while no coal had been
mined or attempt to mine coal from
beneath Sandys plot had been made.
the headings We're gradually approach
ing it and it was intended eventually
to tap it. In a word, the coal under
Sandy's plot was a part OF a tract Of
coal which the company had war
rantee deed for and which it was in
actual and active possession. The
Supreme court said this was good law.
Now, Harris & Co. come back to Mrs.
Barrett for $4,000 damages. claiming
she covenanted to protect them against
intunctions. and that she should be
compelled to pay them the cost of the
improvements they made and for tile
profits they would have earned from
their lease.
The defense has not Yet been out
lined. Il. C. Newcomb and Charles l..
Hawley represent the plaintiffs. The
defendants attorneys are George S.
Horn, Major Everett Warren, Y. =.
Duffy and Richard j. Bourke.
IN MAIN COURT ROOM.
Judge Kelly, in the main court room.
is engaged in the trial of the case
of the North End Lumber company
against Thomas r. Donlin, defendant,
and Morgan Sweeney, garnishee, in
which there is an interesting question
regarding the enforcement of the
clause in a building contract, penalz-
ing contractor for delay in complet-
ing the work at a prescribed time.
The Lumber company secured
judgment against Donlin for $500 and
attached moneys amounting to $500,
which the owner of the building in
question: Morgan Sweeney, is owing or
the contract.
Mr. Sweeney claims he is owing Dom
lin nothing. as the debt was more than
eaten by the penalty of So day for
the time the contract remained uncom-
pleted after the date on which it was
agreed to be finished.
The plaintiff company rejoins that a
$500 penalty on $1,000 contract is dis
proportion and out of all conformity
with good conscience and equity. A
fair measure of damages would be the
rent the house would earn for two
months and a half, or the interest on
the expenditure for that time
Vosburg & Dawson, who represent
the plaintiff. and Hon. John r. Qun-
nan, the garnishee's attorney, will
argue the law points this morning.
The case of Henry Bussey against the
Scranton Traction company was settled
before Judge Kelly. a verdict for the
defendant was directed to enter, with
out costs. c. a. Battenberg represented
the plaintiff, and Major Everett War
ren, the defendant.
In the case of Y. Merryweather
against Ella NJ. Wilson, executriX, the
plaintiff suffered voluntary non-suit
to be entered
A WAGE CASE.
The wage case of James w. Healey
against John ]. German was referred
to Attorney Il. j. Murray. George S.
Horn represents the plaintiff. and d. j.
Reedy, the defendant.
The cases reported settled We're: II. |
A. Nettel against Frank Johnson, wage |
claim: William Webber against Smith |
& Grass, wage claim; Thomas L. Leon
ard against Hunt & Connell, appeal; |
II. G. Robinson against Henry ii. |
Schneider; Il. j. Honan against Scran- |
ton Railway company; John II. Me- |
Lean against Central railroad.
The following cases were continued: |
Wolf & Warren, executors, against the |
Bonita Plate Glass company, eject |
ment; the Langcliffe Coal company |
against the New York and Susque- |
hanna Coal company. assumpsit; o. NJ.
Fletcher against w. w. Williams, |
wage claim; Mary Dufiin against the |
City of Scranton, trespass; Luther Kel-