The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-01-18
SUPERIOR COURT CASES
Those That We're Argued Yesterday,
Five Lackawanna Gases
Are Still Open.

-Four more of the Lackawanna cases
We're heard by the Superior court yes
terday, leaving five still open. These
latter will be heard next week, after
the arguments in the Bradford, Pike,
Susquehanna and Wayne cases are con-
cluded.
The cases from the local court yet to
be heard are: Kelly against Donnelly,
Carter against the Turnpike company.
Gumaer against Hartley, Neuls against
the City of Scranton, and Schroeder
against the Gas and Water company.
The first case argued yesterday was
Henry Harding against William Repp,
appellant. 1t is case stated to test
the legality of tax levy made by an
assessment fixed by an assessor not
duly elected Judgment was given in
the court below for the plaintiff. j. e.
Watkins argued for the appellee, and
Fl. M. Hannah for the appellant.
The case of Dan Kisernski against
Thomas Gilboy, appellant, was argued
for the appellee by John r. Edwards,
and for the appellant by James j.
O'Malley. The parties are owners of
adjoining lots in Moosic. Through the
plaintiffs lot there ran II natural
stream of water at one time, causing a
gully The plaintiff filed up the gully,
and when a heavy rain came the de-
PENDANTS lot was inundated. He al
legged the inundation was the result of
the filling. The defendant denied this
and further contended that at the time
of the filling the gully did not contain
living stream, but only an occasional
course for surface water In the lower
court, damages were awarded against
the defendant for $4S.33 The appeal
was taken on the ground that there
was not sufficient evidence to warrant
the submission to the jury of the ques-
ton as to whether or not the stream
was living stream.
The case of T. Il. Nettleton against
j, ID. Caryl, appellant, was argued by
Joseph O'Brien for the appellee, and
George NJ. Watson for the appellant
The plaintiff sold the defendant lot
on contract. When 1t came time for
the last payment the plaintiff refused
to give deed until settlement was
made for interest, The defendant pro-
duced the contract and showed that it
did not contain the usual with inter-
est clause. The plaintiff went into
court to prove that the omission of the
clause with interest" was an accident,
and that the intention of the parties TO
the contract was that it should be an
interest-bearing instrument.
TO revise Il written instrument orally
1t is necessary as first step to have
the support of two witnesses, or one
witness and corroborative cireum-
stances equivalent to the testimony of
second witness. The attorney who
drew up the instrument testified that
the with interest" clause was omitted
by mistake Circumstances of a varied
nature We're presented in evidence TO
corroborate him. The court below be-
lieved these circumstances TO he as con-
yincing as the evidence of u second
witness. and directed verdict for the
plaintiIf. The appeal is from this de-
cision.
The case of T.. ID. Manley against
Isabella okell, appellant, was quashed
because of defects in the paper book
The judges will spend today in con-
sultation, and resume hearings Monday
morning.