The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-03-26

When Comegys and Davis, together
with w. r. Williams and S. NJ. Mayer,
who were taken in as half-oWners, pro-
ceeded to enter upon the land, Daven-
port attempted to stay them by in
junction proceedings, alleging that the
option he signed was not the one he
supposed it was. He was, however, de-
feated in this.
RUSSELL'S SUIT.
Then Russell went into court with n
suit in ejectment to oust Comegys ct
al. alleging that Davenport had no
right to give a lease. He claimed that
Davenport, by reason of his failure to
pay royalties. had forfeited his lease,
and that at the time he gave the sub
lease he had no interest in the prop
erty. Russell was defeated, but the
Supreme court reversed the finding and
ordered a new trial. Again n verdict
was returned against Russell, and this
time the Supreme court sustained it.
This established the right of Comegys
and his partners to the lease on the
coal, but it did not succeed in taking
the property out of the courts. Three
of the four lessees sold their interests
fourth, Thomas Davis, came in with
his claim for fourth of the royalties
and secured an order for an account
ing.
Yesterday in Judge Wheaton's court,
the property again bobbed up in the
case of Thomas Davis ct al against A..
r. Russell. a suit to recover treble
damages for 1000 tons of coal, which,
it is alleged Russell mined from the
tract, while the property was in dis
pute.
Joseph O'Brien, NJ j. Martin, John
r. Edwards, Thomas p. Duffy and Cor
nelius Comegys appear for the plain
tiff II. NJ. Hannah and S. Il. Price
represent the defendant.
The introduction of papers showing
the title of the plaintiffs. as acquired
by these many years of litigation, was
not concluded at adjourning time.
MRS. RYAN, PLAINTIFF.
President Judge Edwards sitting in
No. 3, is engaged in hearing the case
of Mrs. Mary Ann Ryan against the
Delaware, LackaWanna and Western
Mutual Aid association. The plaintiff
is the mother OF Edward Ryan, one of
the trainmen killed in the wreck at
Henryville. July 4, 1900. He was a
member of the Mutual Aid association,
and, if beneficial member, his bene-
ticiary would be entitled to $1,000 in
death benefits. The association refused
to pay the claim, on the ground that
he was non beneficial.
One of the laws of the association is
that if Il member fails to pay IL death
assessment within forty-five days of
the time ii is levied, he becomes non
beneficial. The books on the associa-
tion showed that Ryan was in arrears
on death assessment at the time of
his death, and consequently not en-
titled to benefits.
The plaintiffs side alleges that Ryan
made tender of the assessment with
in the forty-tiye days TO Secretary
Haag, but that he declined to accept it,
saying he was too busy just then. r.
w. Healey, Il trainman, who was a
friend of Ryan, testified that Secre-
tary Haag told him this was So Sec
retary Haag took the stand and swore
that he never told Healey anything of
the kind, and that the alleged tender
never took place
The case was on at adjourning time.
Hon, John p. Quinnan and r. p. EIoban
represent the plaintiff, The association
Is represented by John j, Murphy and
Thomas p. Duffy.
BEFORE JUDGE NEWCOMB.
Before Judge Newcomb, who is pre-
siding in the main court room. was
tried the case of the Union Cash Stores
limited of Dunmore, against Dr.. George
LuNemberger. Ii is II suit to recover
$3.50 of balance on a bill for plumbing
and timing.
The plaintiff, through the manager OF
its hardware department. Thomas T.
Cawley, was doing work ON Il sub-con-
tract under NJ. q, Worden, on the de-
PENDANTS house, ON Vine street. in 1899
In the month of August the work was
halted by strike, The defendant was
anxious to have it proceeded with and
in due time the plaintiff completed the
job.
The plaintiff alleges that when it re,
sumed work it was with an explicit
understanding that the defendant would
| be responsible for the payment of the
balance. The defendant claims that the
understanding WAS that he would pay
the balance if Mr.. Cawley could moi
| collect it from Worden by retaining II
from Worden's bin for work he was
then engaged in doing on, Cawley's
| house.
The case hinges ON the question as tc
What terms the work was resumed
under The law provides that when one
party agrees to be surety for another's
liability, the agreement is not valid un,
less in writing, when the amount in,
VOWED Is over $40. The plaintiff con,
tends that the work was resumed under
Il new contract with DR.. Luxemberger
The latter claims he simply gave n CON.