The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-07-12
AN APPEAL IS REFUSED.
Supreme Court Decides That Richard
j. Little Must Serve His Term.
Decisions in other Cases,

Richard j. Little, editor of the Scran-
tonian, for the allowance of an ap-
peal to that body from the decision of
the Superior court in his case. Little
Is now serving a term in the county
Jail for libelling Colonel Il. II. Ripple.
This decision means that Little will
have to serve out his sentence, which
expires Aug. "a.
Other decisions handed down at
Philadelphia yesterday in Lackawanna
county cases were:
Won Storch VS. Van Storch, c. p.
firmed.
company VS.. the borough o. Olyphant,
ct al" c. p. Lackawanna county. De-
cree is affirmed at the cost of the ap-
pellants.
Gunster VS.. Jessup ct al, C. P.
Lackawanna. Judgment is affirmed.
The case Of Gunster against Jessup
Is the famous one growing out of the
failure of the Scranton City bank.
This suit was brought to recover up
on a bond given by George A. Jessup,
vice-presdent of the Scranton City
bank, dated on or about the 18th of
February, 1886. The sureties upon the
bond were William II. Jessup, Benja.
min II. Throop and Albert Beardsley.
William II. Jessup is the surviving
obligor.
The condition of the bond was that
If George A. Jessup should fulfill with
integrity and fidelity the trust reposed
in him, and faithfully execute the du-
ties assigned to him as vice-presdent,
then the obligation be void, otherwise
to be of full effect.
At the trial of the case Edward Mer-
ritield, who was once a director and
stockholder of the bank, was called as
witness for the plaintiff. Objection
vase made that he was incompetent
as to any matters occurring In the life
time of DR.. Throop, Albert Beardsley
and George A. Jessup, who We're then
dead or as to any matters with which
they were concerned.
1t was shown that Mr.. Merrifeld had
released and turned over all his stock
to the assignee of the Scranton City
bank. 1t was also shown that there
was an agreement of certain directors,
including the witness, with a commit
tee of depositors, to pay the depositors
tract had been complied. with and sur
rendered to the directors; there being
a receipt upon the back of it of the
chairman of the committee of deposit
tors to that effect. 1t was proved tha,
certain depositors had assigned their
deposits to Mr.. Merrifleld, trustee, for
the purpose of showing that he was
interested in this suit. This evidence
IL Il. =
written assignment from Mr.. Merri-
field to Henry Armburst of all his in
tereSt in deposits. 1t was shown also
that Mr.. Merrifeld and others, at the
time of the failure of the bank, bor-
rowed some money from the First Ma
tional bank, of Scranton, and gave
their note for the purpose of paying
depositors. At the time of the trial
there was a note at the First National
bank of about $4,000, upon which Mr..
Merrifield was a maker.
The court ruled that the witness was
incompetent. The bond had been lost
or destroyed, and there was no other
witness by whom it's execution and
contents could be proved except Mr..
Merrifield.
The charge of the court was as fol-
lows: Gentlemen of the jury, there
being no evidence in this case upon
which the plaintiff is entitled to re-
cover, your verdict will be for the de-
PENDANTS"
The judgment of the court of this
county that the plaintiff was not en-
titled to recover is sustained by the
Supreme court.
The Olyphant Sewage Drainage COM
pany, which was incorporated on the
twenty seventh day of February, 1894,
and on the same date by ordinance
was granted the right to use the streets
of the said borough for the purpose OF
carrying out its corporate rights and
purposes, did not, it was alleged, carry
on its work until the seventeenth day
of April, 1899, when the officers of the
borough of Olyphant prevented the
plaintiff company from excavating and
laying pipe or using its streets for the
purpose of constructing a system OF
sewers for the said borough. The plain
tiff company then asked for an in
junction restraining the borough of
Olyphant and its officials from inter-
fering with plaintiffs workmen.
After hearing the case, the court
made the following order:
"Now, therefore, this twenty-first
day of December, 1899, this cause hav-
ing been heard at a regular term OF
equity court and having been duly con :
sidered, we order and direct that n
permanent injunction issue against the
defendants in accordance with the
prayer OF plaintiffs bill and that the
defendants pay the costs of these pro-
ceedings."
This decision is upheld by the Su-
preme court.
The Won Storch case is one in which
the title to certain lands in North
Scranton was in dispute.
THE OFFICE.