The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-01-18

/
OF them were Lackawanna county ap-
peals.
A case argued at some length was
| William Baylor against Loren q.
| Stephens, appellant. The men own ad-
| joining properties at Benton, this
county, and 1t Is alleged that fire
was started on Stephens land to de-
| stroy some underground, but so neg
| ligently was it guarded that the fire
| spread onto Baylor's land and de-
stroyed a large amount of valuable
| timber. In September the case was
! tried in common pleas and on Septem-
ber 81 q verdict of $500 was returned
in favor of Baylor. The appellant al
! leges that the most grlevous error IN
| this case was committed in compelling
the defendant to defend against a con-
| structive allegation of negligence in
and about the care, control and man.
agement of the fire. The case was ar
| gued by Attorney Z. c. Newcomb and
| A. A. Vosburg for Stephens, and At
| torneys Joseph O'Bren and G. III.
Sopher for Baylor.
EX-County Solicitor II. y. Knapp
| for the appellee and Colonel l.. "A.
| Watres for the appellant argued the
| case of the commonwealth eX rel. NJ.
| Y. Kelly, lcounty treasurer, against
| the Spring Brook Water Supply COM
| pany, appellant. The action is one
to compel the water company to pay
| county and township tDXes on 5000
acres of land in Spring Brook, which
il claims is exempt on the ground
that it Is maintained, and necessarily
| so, as watershed. and therefore q
| part of its water works.
ARCHRALD'S DECISION.
Judge Archibald decided against the
| contention and the company appealed.
| l'he plaintiff holds that the land is
not necessary as water shed. The
company claims IL Is and being so is
not subject TO local taxation. 1t fur
ther holds that the company and not
the court Is the proper judge of what
are the necessary and Indispensable
adjuncts of water company.
A decision of the late Judge Gun
ster is being revived in the appeal of
the defendant in the equity case of
| Ellen c. Kelly against James +. Dom
nelly.
The parties own adjoining properties
| on Madison avenue. Their buildings
are thirty-siN inches apart. For over
| y
tained jointly by the parties along the
whole length of the dividing line, en-
cept for the twenty feet directly be-
tween the two buildings, which was
enclosed with boards set at right
angles with the fence line.
Three years ago the defendant pro-
ceeded to continue the fencing along
the whole dividing line. He set six
posts on the Kelly lot. in line with
the other posts in the fence, and was
proceeding to nail on one-inch boards
on his side of the line when the plain
tift interferred with an injunction.
QUESTION THAT AROSE.
The question then arose as to which
lot was being called upon to give UP
the greater amount OF land for the ac-
commodation OF the feEce. The space
occupied by one.inch boarding for
twenty feet was admittedly greater
than that taken up by six posts six
inches square at the ground, but the
railing that would bind the posts had
TO be taken into consideration, Judge
Gunster held. ard when this was done
the Kelly lot would be found to be
giving up much more than its eQuit-
able share, and he made his decree
in favor OF the plaintiff
! Judge Gunster died before argrl-
ments could be made on exceptions to
his finding and as the other local
Judges did not wish to review the case
It was taken To the Supreme court
The main contention of appellant Is
that Judge Gunster presumed some-
thing that was not I'm the case when
he took the question of rails into his
| computation. No rails had been
stretched between the posts and there
was nothing OH which to base q pre-.
sumption that rails We're 10 ne used
| at all.
Thomas =. Duffy argued for the ap-
pellant and for theappcllee. George NJ.
Watson and w. s. Hulslander were
| heard.
The last of the Luzerne cases heard
was that of Thomas Mitchell against
| Michael Kearns and others, school di-
rectors Of Pittston township. and the
American Book company. appellants
THEY BOUGHT BOOKS.
Tile school directors bought lot OF
books under a long term contract from
the American Book company. The law
requires that books shall be selected
by the teachers and contracted for
in the regular manner a. stated
meeting of the board. The defendants
say they did all this. The PLAINTIFF
alleges that the teachers were not con-
suited and that the contract was made