The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-05-16


voided by II party if he can show
that at the time he entered into 1t he
was drunk. From questions propound-
ed TO witnesses in u case before Judge
Carpenter in common pleas yesterday
it is gathered that this will bc a part
oi the defense.
1t Is the suit of John +. Fowi,r
against the Meadow Brook Water
company, one of the concerns allied
with the Scranton Gas and Water
company, md which has for its prcsi-
dent the distinguished president of the
latter big corporation, w. w. SCran-
ton.
The machinery and tools used in the
construction Of the tunnel under the
East mountain from the Burnt Bridge
reservoir t. Il point near the Boule-
"ard are tile subjects of dispute.
Nj. Fowler and Hon. John r. Will
liacis. on Jane 6, 1898. contracted to
dig the tunnel. They were to receive
s1G per linecl yard receive Il bonus of
$50 .or every day that the work stood
completed before the contract time,
and forfeit $50 for every day it re-
nained incomplete after the contract
time.
December J, or seven months after
they undt; 'ooli the job. they ceased
work OH the contract, with the tunnel
only one-t third completed and more
than one-lialf of the contract period
passed. The company sieZed the tools
and Proceeded to prosecute the work
with IT'S own men, While looking about
tor other contractors to step in and
take the place of Fowler & Williams.
After two months had elapsed the
company succeeded in inducing Scott
g. Quinn. who worked on the famous
Jeddo tunnel, to accept the job at
S3.75 yard more than was originally
allowed Fowler x Williams. and with
the further allowance of the FREQ use
of the machinery and tools thHt !'oW-
ler & Williams had been using
COST WAS INCREASED
Scott d Quinn completed tho ,ob
satisfactorily. but instead OF costing
$4,000. as was figured originally. The
company expended sal 900 on tn" ;,,n-
nel
Mr. Fowler claims lie pers ,nallp
owned $1,000 worth OF ttle tools and
machinery and his suit is to recover
this amount. On the stand yesterday
he said that Mr.. Scranton told him in
December. 1898. that he need not go
on with the work and that his ma
chinery and tools were forfeited to
the company.
This of course. was the plaintiffs
mere statement of claim. The real
case Of the plaintiff will come on re-
buttal. 1t will be in the shape of evil
dence To meet that which is now be-
ing adduced by the defense This lat
ter evidence is to the effect that Tow-
lcl Il Williams pleaded with the conf
panv In be released from their con-
tract, ana finally. after several refu-
sails, the company agreed to abrogate
the contract, providing Fowler e Will
liams would give over the tools. ma
ttincry and supplies then on the
ground, that the company might pro
coed OF itself to complete the work.
y written contract, in which Fowler
4 Williams agreed to this. is the back
bone Of the defendants case .Iudg-
ing from the questions asked by the
plaintiffs attorney. it will be contend
ed that Mr.. Fowler did not sign this
agreement. OF if he did. II was done
at time when he was intoxicated
and when he did not know what he
was doing.
Mr.. Williams, who took the agree
ment 10 Fowlel's house to secure the
signature, was questioned at length by
the plaintiffs side as to whether or
rot Mr.. Fowler was rot suffering
from alcoholism on the day the agree
ment is purported to have been signed
by him, hut Mr.. Williams would not
say this was so. lt might be so. how
ever. Mr. Williams said, but he noticed
no evidence of il.