The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-12-20

days.
ARGUMENTS HEARD.
Arguments were also heard yesterday
| in two other suits to secure the return
of money under written agreement
Mark *. Edgar and George +. Rev.
| nolds are the plaintiffs and s. N. Cal
lender defendant.
January 6, 1900, Mr.. Calender SOLD
them each 100 shares in the Arizona
Eastern and Montana Smelling COM
pany at S. a share, with the under.
standing that if, at the end of six
stock, he would buy it back at Sc a
share, providing they gave him fifteen
days written notice. The plaintiffs did
not look with favor on the investment,
and so gave the prescribed fifteen days
notice on June 81. Mr.. CallendeA re-
fused to grant their demand to re-pur-
chase, and hence the suit.
Mr.. Calender makes the technical de-
fense that the stock was not offered
for re-purchase on July 6, the termina-
ton of the six months period. Judge
Archibald said he believed the notice of
June 81 was sufficient, but took the
papers for further consideration. E. c.
Newcolnb appeared for the plaintiffs,
and w. S. Diehl for the defendant.
In themandamus proceedings brought
by the Barber Asphalt company to
compel City Clerk Martin T. Lavelle to
draw a warrant for one of the COM
pany's approved claims, arguments
We're made on the demurrer by ex-
Judge Z. N. Willard for Mr.. Lavelle,
and I. H. Burns for the company.
The claim is or 500 for the city's share
Of the paving done in front of the
Handley property on Penn avenue.
Councils, in providing for the work,
directed that the cost should be charged
to the judgments and incdentals fund.
City Clerk Lavelle refused to draw the
warrant on the ground that there was
no appropriation to meet it, the few
thousand dollars still remaining in the
judgments and incidentals fund being
covered many times over by prior
claims.
MIR. BURNS CONTENTION.
Mr.. Burns claimed that as the clerks
duty in the premises is simply minis
terial, he has no right to exercise anv
discretionary power. Judge Willard
contended that the law makes it a
penal offense for city official to draw
a warrant for a claim for the payment
of which no provision has been made,
and that by drawing this warrant the
city clerk would be laying himself
liable to the penalty, as there is no
available money to meet the claim.
Other cases We're disposed of as fol-
lows:
Argued--M. j. Ruddy against William Repp,
rule to set aside verdict: j. A. Spcer against
Mary J. Jones, rule to strike off appeal; s. n.
Stettler against the Delaware and Hudson com
pany; rule to perfect bail; l.. b. Grosvcnor
against n. ]. Cook, rule for a new trial;
Thomas w. Davis ct al, rule to strike of non.
suit: Charles Reed against A. N Walker, ex-
ccptions to affidavit of defense; Charles Reed
against G. NJ Hallstead, exceptions to affidavit
of defense; r. l.. Grusburg Son against
Scranton Railway company, rule for judgment.
Judgment aflirned--Commonwcalt against
John Mackey, certiorari; A. Brown against Belle
Hamilton, ccrtiorari.
Contnued-Charles Styles against Clarence
Cole ct al, ccrtiorari; NJ Calender against G.
Grewzewski, certiOrari.
Jones, divorce; Susan schoen against Simon
Schoen, divorce: S. NJ Lewis against Carrie
Lewis, divorce; Michael Iamonca against Lucia
Lamonea, divorce; George Birtch against Ida
Birtch, divorce; Alex Dunn, ST., against Julia A.
Charprat ct al, equity; Sarah ]. Boand
against John P. Boland, divorce.
Writ non'prossed-,Iohn Sewitska against Am.
brose savage, certiorar
Rule absoute--Mark Foster against John
Reese, rule to open Judgment John Church CON.
pany against NJ. W. Guernsey ct al, rule on
plaintiffs to file an account.
SAUL AND DWYER CASE.
The case of ey-Patrolmen James
Saul and Stephen Dyer against the
city of Scranton We're put over till
today.
Court made special order fixing to-
morrow morning as the time for the
hearing in the application for an in
junction restraining the city from
erecting the West Lackawanna ave-
nue. viaduct.
The order was made at the request
of all the attorneys interested In the
case, who desire to have the ques-
tion settled as quickly as possible.
Ordinarily, the case would not have
come up until next month
The hearings on the rules to revoke
liquor licenses and other criminal
court matters We're not reached yes
terday and had to be put over till
today.