The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-04-24

An unusually large number of cases
of general interest were heard. yester-
day, by Judges Edwards, Kelly and
Newcomb in argument court.
One of them came from that UNI
usually interesting municipality Old
Forge township, Of which The Tribune
has had occasion to write about sew
eral times. In 1S09 when Old forge
borough was carved out of Old Forge
township, Il 100 acre tract of land
owned by the Delaware. I.ackawannil
& Western company and populated BY
five families, was left to constitute
Old Forge township. The township
recently went into court to secure an
appOrtiOnment of the funds in what
was the Old Forge township school dis
trict. Attorney T.. A. Thayer. as eX-
aminer. found that the little town.
ships per rata share of the school
funds was $4,000 The Old Forge bo-
rough school district and the Old Forge
Tax Payers association of which Will
liam Repp is the moving spirit object
ed to the examiners findings and the
exceptions came up for u hearing yes
terday afternoon.
Fl. NJ. Hannah, O'Brien & Martin
and j. l.. Watkins for the exceptants
argued that the township school dis
trict was not entitled to any share in
the funds as it was legal impossible
ity as a school district. There are only
seven voters and six children of school
age in the whole municipality it was
shown, and it's people are not man-
tanning what would legally be con-
templated as the machinery Of q school
II t,;, y; tat he,
law, it was argued, is simply an agent
of the state in the distribution of a
charity. The township sends its six
children to schools in adjoining muni-
cipalities at a total expense Of $40 a
year. To give it $4,000 of the states
charity would be. it was considered a
misappropriation.
IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE.
Major Everitt Warren, replying for
the township. which is owned by the
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
company. argued that it made no Diff
ference how great or how small was
the number of people in the district;
the funds from which it was seeking
its share and the only question for the
court was as to whether or not the
examiner had made a. fair and equit-
able appartionment, and this the other
side did not contest. The township.
he further contended had an existence
fifty years ago has an existence to-
day and cannot be- wiped off the map
in the manner the cXceptants are
adopting.
The attack on the naturalization
papers of Common Councilnan John
McHale. of the Eighteenth ward was
aired at length, by George ID. Taylor,
representing William Rush, Mr.. Me-
Hale's defeated opponent, and Joseph
O'Brien. representing Mr.. McHale.
McHale was naturalized in this coun-
try in 1885. He SwOre he arrived in
this country August q. 1876. when he
was under eighteen years of age. The
complainants aver that he was over
eighteen when he arrived here and
consequently that his naturtli IA lion
papers being hypothecated on fraud
should be cancelled.
Mr.. McHale stated in his examina-
ton that he was born in Ireland in
1857, came to this country in 1876. re-
manned in Scranton two years. went to
Pittsburg and stayed there until 1882,
he went to England and was married,
returning to Scranton a month later,
his wife following him in 1854.
TESTIMONY INVALID.
To discredit Mr.. McHale's story, Mr..
Taylor quoted the testimony of James
Burns, q resident of the Eighteenth
ward. who averred that he met McHale
in 1883 and that McHale told him he
had been in the country only two weeks