The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-01-19

This weeks list of arguments before
the Superior court was concluded yes
terday with the hearing of the case
of ID. r. Replogle against Arthur
rockingham. appellant. common
pleas, Lackawanna county,
In 1895. Mr.. Replogle negotiated for
Mr.. rockingham n loan of $50.
rockingham gave judgment note
for $3.50, and as collateral security
furnished Mr.. Replogle with a con-
tract for S1J0 which j. Frank Slegel
had entered into with Mr.. Frothing-
ham for the use Of the theater, of
which the latter was then owner.
Before the note became due. Mr..
Replogle collected sl07 from Mr.. Siegel.
The difference of s43 was retained by
Mr.. Siegel for alleged breach of part
of the contract. in Mr.. rockingham
not having laid crash on the thcater
floor, as promised. When the note
became due, Mr.. Replogle entered
judgment OH IL and proceeded to exc
cution. To avoid sale, Mr.. Froth-
ingham paid the Judgment and costs.
He then had Mr. Replogle arrested
for obtaining money by fraud.
HE WAS PARoLED.
Mr. Replogle went before Alderman
Millar, in custody of Constable Jack
Tierney, and in default of bail was
committed. He was parolcd in Gus
tody of his attorney and the next day
was released on habeas corpus pro-
ceedings. Mr.. Frothingham again had
him arrested on the same charge. and
he gave bail before Alderman Wright.
When the case came before the grand
jury, Mr. Frothingham did not appear
| and the case was ignored
He thereupon sued Mr.. Frothinghaln
for malicious prosecution and secured
a verdict of $3.50. Mr.. Frothingham
appealed, alleging that the court had
erred In not giving binding instruc-
tions to find in his favor in that he
had conducted the prosecution on ad-
vice of his counsel. M. w. Lawry.
The plaintiff alleges that Mr.. Froth-
ingham cannot thus shield himself be-
! cause he failed to show that he gave
his counsel a correct and full state
ment of the circumstances of the case.
Mr.. Replogle's defense to the origi-
| nal case is that he was compelled 20
| take advantage of the judgment note
to make up the deficiency between the
S1o7 which the Siegel contract realized
| and the $50 which was loaned on the
note. of which he was an endorser.
Joseph O'Brien and James II. Torrey
| represented Mr.. Reploglc. r. III. Hol-
gate argued for Mr.. rockingham.
AN IMPORTANT CASE.
The case Is important i'm that if the
| judgment against Mr.. rockingham is
sustained. he will either have TO pay
| the judgment or go TO Jail.
The only other case argued was the
| matter of the Cltawissa and Main
| township road, a dispute as to the
| width of 4 road in Columbia county.
William II. Rhawn and Christian A.
| Small appeared for the appellants. r.
j. Vanderslue and Fred Ikcler argued
for the appellees.
The case of the commonwealth
| against David I. Long. appellant, Le-
banon county, and the case of com
monwealth against William Church
| and Frederick Burdick, appellants,
| Susquehanna county, were continued
| to the Harrisburg session.
Next weeks list is made up of eight
| cases from Bradford, Pike. Susque-
hanna and Wayne counties. and the
| following four cases put over from
this week: Commonwealth, appellant
against NJ, Fl. Howells, Luzerne coun-
ty: commonwealth to the use of j. +,
Briggs. appellant, against Webster
| Remaley and others, Luzerne county:
John $. Millar appellant, against In
trrstate Casualty company, Lacka-
wanna county, and commonwealth,
against Anthony Dunleavy, appellant
| Lackawanna county.
The court will, it is expected COM
pleted its work by Wednesday.