The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-01-12


ccption of five Laokawanna cases had
been disposed of when the superior
court adjourned yesterday afternoon.
1t is expected that the list will be
exhausted by noon to-day and that
adjournment will be made till Monday,
when large number OF opinions are
to be handed down.
Among the cases scheduled for adj
Journment today is that of the Conf
monwealth. appellant. against Clark,
in which the Weller act, making 1t
penal ofense for Il corporation to dis
charge an employe because Of his al
flliation with a labor organization. The
appeal is from Judge Gunster's decis-
ion that the act is unconstitutional be-
cause in singing out corporations from
other classes of employers. 1t becomes
special legislation. The state labor or
Eanizations have taken the mat
tor in hand and are backing
the appeal. The fact that employees
of the Reading railroad who were re-
Gently discharged have brought sui.
against the company under this same
act gives the Clark case added inter-
est. The outcome will be watched with
interest by union men all over the
country.
The first Lackawanna case argued
was the appeal Of Mary Dolphin in
the matter of the lunacy of Peter Gar
vey. NJ. ]. Martin appeared for the
appellant and A. A. Nosburg for the
appellee. 1t is a. dispute between the
wife and children of a lunatic over a
property in Throop.
FACTS IN THE CASE.
In 1896 Peter Garvey was legally de-
clared u luna,ic and J. $. Dolphin his
sonin-law. was appointed a commit
tee to manage his estate. which in the
main consisted Of eight acres of land
in Throop, improved with two two
story frame dwellings,. Complaints to
the effect that the committee was me-
glecting to provide for the wife was
phin's resignation.
George Olendike was appointed to
succeed hin, and forthwith entered a
rule to show why the real estate
| should not be sold. After some con-
tinuance the sale took place, Edmund
| j. McNally and Martin Ferguson pur-
chasing it for $500.
The children are trying to have the
sale set aside on the ground that It
| was unnecessary, that the proceedings
| were irregular and thac the property
| was sold for one fourth of its actual
| value.
| The case of Thomas MciIalc against
the borough Of Throop and others. ap-
pellants, was argued by G.. w. Dawson
for the appellants and James ]. O'Mal-
ley for the appellee.
When Throop was a part Of Dick
| son city the municipality contracted
| with the Dickson city water company
to erect and supply ten fire hydrants,
the municipality to keep the hydrants
in repair. One Of these ten hydrants
was located in front os the plaintiff s
property. In 1898, some years after
Throop became a borough. this hy-
drant was broken by wagon collid-
ing with ii. The water in the main
was at that time very low, but in the
fall, when the pressure became high,
the water forced its way through he
break in the hydrant UP through the
ground and into McHale's yard. a
verdict was rendered against the bor-
ough and an appeal was taken on the
ground of errors in the trial.
PRESSMAN CASE.
T.. II. Shurtleff. for the appellant,
and G.. Il. Little. for the appellee, ar
gued the case of John Pressinap, ap-
pellart. against the borough Of Dick
| son city.
1t is an action In trespaSs to recover
damages for injury to the plaintiff =
property, alleged to have been caused
by the borough films ur 4 street gut
ter adjoining the plaintiffs lot, 81
structing the natural flow OF the water
and throwing it over upon the plain
tiff's premises. There was a pipe one
foot in diameter laid beneath the fill
ing, but the plaintiff alleges that it
was Inadequate to carry off the water,
and further that it was of faulty con-
struction, being laid almost level and
therefore liable to easily clog and
freeze.
The defense was that the overtiows
only occurred in times nf unusual
storms and that at all events Elu-
nicipality can not be charged with
negligence when u mistake is made in
a judicial act
At the time Of adjournment argu-
| ments We're about concluded m the
case of George G. Ninans against L.
NJ. Bunnell. appellant. Hon. John y.
Kelly was heard Cor the appellant and
Cornelius Conogys for tine appellee.
Mr.. Bunnell owns a siNty-acre tract
in New Hampshire which contains gold
and silver. He was anxious tc have
it opened up and on January 2. 1884,
made n written agreement with Mr.
Winans whereby Bunnel agreed ia
sell to Winans for $1,0j0 an option Ia
purchase a one-half interest in the
tract for $l5O,000. Winans was also
to pay the expenses of mining twenty
tons of ore for testing purposes. II
after the test was made Winans did
not want to take advantage of his OPP
tion Bunnell was to return TO him
$1,000 of the s1,050.
The OPTION EXPIRED.
Winans was to have made the tests
but Bunnell arranged 20 do the work
himself. AS he made expenditures
from time to time In developing the
tract he made requisition On Winans
for money with which to meet them
Winans met some CT these demands
paying all told s3.5.
Winans allowed his option to expire