The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-03-27

Impossible to Say Just What the
Eject Of This Decision Is-The
Important Case Of Jermyn Against
Mcclure Passed Upon.
At Philadelphia Yesterday the su.
preine court handed down opinions in
three Lackawanna county cases. The
one of most general interest is that OF
the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania
ex. rel. John r. Jones, district attor-
ney, against Frank L. Dickert. proceed
ings brought by John j. Murphy to test
the right of Frank L. Dickert to the
Office Of poor director in the South
ward district, BY appointment of Judge
Archibald.
Judge Edwards handed down the
opinion Of the Lackawanna county
court August IA, 1899, declaring that
the office of poor director In the Scran-
ton poor district Is elective under the
act Of assembly Of Pennsylvania April
9. 1862. He further decided that in
cases of vacancy the president judge
Of the courts Of common pleas of Lack
| awanna county Is the proper authority
to fill said vacancies and that there
was a vacancy in said office when Mr..
Murphy was elected in February. 1893,
and therefore F. l.. Dickert was law
fully holding said office. He still
| further decided that the supplement
| tary act of 1866, under which the presi-
dent Judge claims power to appoint to
| fill vacancies Is constitutional.
The supreme court has affirmed this
opinion, but until the full text of said
| opinion is at hand it Is difficult to tell
Just what this decision definitely
means. If affirmed in it's entirety then
| the Office is elective and the question
| concerning Mr.. Dickert and Mr. MUIR
| phys respective claims to the said
| office are still open. for the reason that
Mr.. Murphy was elected in February,
| 1899, the proper time for election ac-
cording to the opinion of the local
| court.
MATTER OF ELECTIONS.
| The question of whether or not It
| Is possible to hold a valid election for
the office owing to the change Of the
| election laws and the notifications OF
the election districts of the old South
ward were not decided by the local
court, but simply tentatively thrown
| out.
This question is, however, squarely
before the local court In quo warranto
proceedings instituted by Mr.. Murphy
on the strength Of his election In the
| spring of 1899 and was before the
| court for hearing at February argu-
ment court, but was continued until
April argument week by Judge Ed
wards to await the decision Of the su-
premc court in the matter pending
there.
Since the commission did not except
to that part of the local courts opin-
| ion wherein 1t decided that the office
is elective, it is possible that the higher
court did not consider this point at
all and may have dealt only with the
constitutional question raised. This
would leave the all important right Of
the people to elect their poor directors
still undecided by the court Of last
resort. In affirming the judgment OF
the lower court 1t is probable that the
supreme court considered all matters
before ii.
The case of Jermyn & Company
against Elliott Mcclure & Company,
|
| ever went before the supreme court.
| The amount involved was more than
100000. The importance which the at
torneys attached to the case Is evil
denced in a way, by the fact that the
appellants paper book contains 955
pages. The report of the master and
the opinion of the chancellor take up
ninety and thirty-eight pages respec-
lively.
PRIMARY QUESTION.
The primary question in the case was
whether or not a parol exchange OF
land had been made. The land in
question Is located in what was for
merly Old Forge township. In the To-
calty known as the Sibley Jermyr
Company were mining from the
south side of stream known as St
Johns brook. Elliott, Mcclure & Com
pany operated from the north side OF
the brook. Each party owned coal or
the side Of the brook opposite to that
on which he was operating. Elliott
Mcclure Company in 1887 began min.
ing coal from the Jermyn tract. Some
years later Jermyn & Company ordered
them to stop. Mr.. Mcclure called on
John Jermyn and called his attention
to an oral agreement by which Elliott
Mcclure & Company was to enter upor
this property. Mr.. Jermyn denied the
agreement, as 1t was stated by Mr.
Mcclure. and brought suit to recover
in equity court for the coal alleged tc
have been unrightfully mined from his
property.
The alleged oral exchange took place
May 2l, 1887. At that time the An.
thracite Coal company owned the Goa
land In that vicinity now operated by
Mr.. Jermyn and he was the company.
general manager He attempted L
mine the disputed coal tract, but CAV.
1t up as Improbable, and when Mr.
Mcclure offered to take it in exchange
for land on the other side of the creek
more convenient to the Pennsylvania
Anthracite company's openings, Mr.
Jermyn, as general manager. approved
! the idea, 1t was claimed, and accom-
interview President Potts. There tn,
alleged exchange was effected and lat
! er Mr.. Jermyn is alleged to have ad
mitted that he understood the terms
,, to be just as Mr. Mcclure contended.
CAUSE OF DISPUTE.
What these terms were is where tn
dispute comes In. The defendants sal,
they gave seventeen acres of good coa
for something over 100 acres OF good
bad and indifferent coal. Mr.. Jermyl
denied this, but admitted ne allowe'
: the defendants to mine from a certain
| ri NJ tho ,,lot Of fortv acroc ov, oor