The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-02-16

begun in the court of common pleas in
1895 To compel the Postal company to
comply with the stipulations of this
ordinance.
GAVE JUDGMENT.
An affidavit of defense was filed and
the court, on motion of counsel for the
borough, gave judgment for the latter
for want Of a sufficient affidavit OF de-
Tense. Attorney Frank II. Shattuck, of
Philadelphia, represented the company
before Judges Archibald, Gunster and
Edwards. who sat in Argument court,
and after judgment was given an ap-
peal was taken to the Superior court.
When 1t went to trial. however, the
attorney for the defense did not ap-
pear, nolle pros. was suffered and the
company paid the amount Of judg-
ment.
The license fees had meanwhile ac-
cumulated and another action, the
present one, was begun in 1897, by
Solicitor John NJ. Harris of the bor-
ough. In court, judgment for $500 was
given. Attorney, Shattuck appealed to
the Superior court and in January sub
mitted a paper argument" Thurs
days decision of the Superior court
announces q victory for the borough,
and 1t is very likely that the matter
will now be taken into the Supreme
court.
A similar acton was heard by Judge
Mcpherson, now United States district
judge in Philadelphia, on July IA, 1898.
when the Central Pennsylvania Tele-
phone and Supply company also con-
tested the borough's action. Judge Nc.
Pherson then decided that boroughs of
this state, Incorporated under the Act
of 1874, had the right to collect license
fees from telegraph and telephone COM
panies, as in such cases the same con-
ditions existed in a borough as a city.
THE BAYLOR CASE.
Another case passed upon by the
Superior court authorities was that Of
William Baylor. of Benton, VS.. Loren
G.. Stephens, of Nicholson. Baylor sued
Stephens in the court of common pleas
in the June term, 1900. for damages to
several acres of forest land belonging
to him at Benton. The trees on this
We're alleged to have been burned to
the ground, or greatly damaged, by
the flames spreading from the land
nearby owned by Stephens, upon which
the latter had built a large fire and
neglected to properly prevent from
spreading.
The suit was heard by Judge AL
bright, and the jury awarded Baylor
$500 damages Baylor was represented
by Attorneys Joseph O'Brian, C. H.
Soper and w. w. Baylor, his son. while
Stephens interests We're attended to
by Attorneys A. A. Vosburg and T.. c..
Newcomb. The latter appealed for
their client on the ground that the evil
dence was not established as to negli-
gence, the cause of action was not
stated in the declaration in accordance
with the evidence, and the court was
in error in certain portions OF the
charge. Stephens will now make ap-
plication for an appeal to the Supreme
court. The action Is peculiar one.
in that it is the only case of its kind
recorded ever tried in Pennsylvani mia
court.
Decree was reversed in The appeal OF
Kelly VS.. Donnelly, BY Judge Rice.
This was en- action over a line fence.
Mrs. William Kelly and Joseph Don
.
Madison avenue. In the tan of 1899,
the Kelly house had been moved, leav-
ing q vacant lot. ana Donnelly built
fence, which, Mrs Kelly found when
| she had new house built treSpassed
over the line, the post cutting off
several inches of her land. She Sc
cured a preliminary injunction to pre-
vent this, and after a hearing Il was
made permanent one.
Objections were filed by Donnelly,
| which were overruled by Judge Guns
ter, this being one of his last decisions
/ Attorney w. S. Hulslander and Judge
John y. Kelly were counsel for Mrs
| Kelly and attorneys George NJ. Wat
son and 7, p. Duffy for the defendant
| they took the matter to the superior
court, and argument was heard In II
last January.
The superior court affirmed the 81 .25r
! judgment given here in a suit brought
against Arthur Frothingham by d. b
Replogle. Suit for $1,000 damages
was brought by Replogle and heard in
May, 1900, In the court of common
pleas. The case was the outcome of
several actions brought against the
attorney by Frothingham who
charged embezzlement or 1925. The
! original action dates back to May
1925. rockingham had Replogle ar
rested twice, and after the second
arrest the counter action was begun.
AGAINST FROTHINGHAM.
After judgment was given against
Frothingham he appealed the case
and it was argued in superior court
by Attorneys James ii, Torrey for
Replogle and Attorney Il. III. Holgate
for rockingham. Judge Beaver hand
er down the opinion, affirming tho
judgment.
| The appeal taken by Mayor Moi,
| from Judge Archbald's ruling during