The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-09-21

One of the cases called for trial yes
terday before Judge Kelly in common
pleas, is caused to come before a jury
by the rather singular circumstance OF
an appellate court reversing local
Judges reversal of himself, and Is to
be sustained on the plaintim's side by
the positively singular circumstance of
a lawyer admitting he made a mistake.
1t is the case of L. II. Nettleton
against ]. u. Caryl. The plaintiff en-
tered judgment on "A contract for lot
The defendant sought to have the
judgment opened and Judge Archibald
permitted it to be opened. Later, when
the case came to be heard in equity,
Judge Archibald reversed his former
finding, declaring he had improperly
opened the judgment, The plaintiff
took an appeal to the superior court
and that tribunal ruled that Judge
Archibald erred in holding himself to
he in error i'm the first instance and
directed that the dispute should go to
a jury because of a conflict of claims
in the matter of facts.
In 1891, Mr.. Ncttlcton put some Green
Ridge land ON the market and through
Broker c. r. Jadwn induced Mr.. Caryl
to purchase a $500 lot, on yearly
payment contract. Mr.. Caryl paid
1916 I'm FIVE years and then rendered
$305 with a demand for deed. Mr..
Nettleton refused to accept the tender
as full payment, claiming interest on
the deferred payments. Mr.. Caryl pro-
duced his copy of the contract and dis
closed the fact that there was no men,
tion of interest Then came the lti
CATION Mr.. Nettleton entering judg
ment on the contract and Mr.. Caryl
opposing It with rule TO open.
WHERE THE DISPUTE ARISES.
Mr. Caryl claims it was stipulated
there should be no interest charges.
Mr.. Nettleton AYERS that il was clearly
understood that interest should be
charged and that the omission Of the
usual words with interest" from the
contract was due to a clerical error
by the attorney, who drew up the
paper.
In opening the case to the jury yes
terday, Attorney w. A. Wilcox, Of
counsel for the plaintiff, stated 1t would
| be shown that by a rough draft Of the
deed made by Mrs. NcttletOn's attorney
| from the information furnished by Mr.
| Jadwln the broker, that the words
with interest" appeared and by
means OF a letter written by MIR. Caryl
| to Mr.. Nettleton it would be shown
| that there was an understanding be-
tween them that interest was to he
charged. The attorney who drew up
the papers would go on the stand, he
if,r h
his mistake the words with interest"
were omitted.
Mr.. Wilcox, with O'Rrien e. Martin,
represent the plaintiff. The defend
ants attorneys are city Solicitor Geo.
| NJ. Watson and c. s. Woodruff
Before the jury was sworn Mr,Wood-
ruff made another tender of s305 to
| the plaintin, and upon its being re-
| fused turned it over to Prothonotary's
Clerk Williams.
Another case tried before Judge
| Kelly had Constable ]. =. Woclkers,
of the Eleventh ward, as plaintiff, and
| Michael Miller the we'll known South
| Scranton business man, as defendant.
HE WAS 4 TENANT.
Woelkcrs was a tenant OF Miller.
| Miller wanted to get him out, and it is
| claimed, used rather heroic measures,
| Among other things, the PLAINTIFF al
! leges, his landlord cut the water pipes
| leading to his house and left him with
| out supply from July till November,
when the lease expired, and he quit.
| He also alleged that the landlord built
| an addition to the house which COM
| pletely shut off the light from the
| bedroom occupied by the plaintiff.
The defense was that the pipes were
| necessarily cut when the addition TO
| the house was being made and con-
nected up again as soon as possible.
| T.. C. Newcomb appeared for the
| plaintiff, and Wellcs & Torrcy for the
defendant. The jury was out at ad-
| journment.
| The city OF Scranton secured a ver-
! dict of S95 SO against Amanzo Reynolds,
| OF Chestnut street, in municipal lien
| case, before Judge Edwards. Mr.. Rey-
nolds refused to pay his sewer assess
| ment Oh the ground that the spur for
| his property was not built to the curb
line, as called for in the specifications
and that it was not set low enough to
drain his property.
| Ihe CITY showed tndt lnere was no
| fixed curb line in front of the Reynolds
property and that. in the judgment OF
the city engineer the sewer was prop
erly laid. The jury accepted the city's
view of the case and gave a verdict
for the claim and Interest. Attorneys
| T. T.. Wells and Thomas Handley rep
resented the defense. City solicitor
Watson appeared for the plaintiff.
FLAHERTY CASE.
Margaret Flaherty was before Judge
Edwards with d claim Of 1884 OS against
her mother, Annie Flahcrty, the claim
being representative OF 5000 loaned
money and interest for six years. Az
ter the plaintiff had put in her claim,
C. r. Pitcher, as attorney for Annie
| Flaherty, daughter OF the defendant
moved to strike out the testimony on
the ground that it was his client and
not the defendant who had not been
| served.
Judge Edwards ruled that as Mr..
| Pitchers client was not n party TO the
case at bar, he had no standing Ia
make such a motion, and could only
withdraw from the case. A verdict
was then directed TO enter for the
| pIaintiff i'm the full amount of her