The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-05-15


Rule for Writ and Not Writ
Should Have Been Granted.
| Arguments in the poor board cases,
which were put over from last Monday,
were heard yesterday morning by
Judges Edwards, Kelly and Newcomb.
| Nearly two hours were consumed by
| the hearing.
The cases are practically the same,
but differ somewhat in title. In the one
case, it is the Commonwealth at the
relation Of John j. Murphy against +.
j. Dickert The other is the Common
wealth at the relation of w. X.
Lewis, district attorney, against w.
A. Paine. The real complainant in the
latter case is James A. Evans.
Mr.. Murphy claims he was elected to
! fill a vacancy in the South ward seat
on the poor board, and Mr.. Evans
claims election to the Hyde Park bor-
ough seat.
Mr.. Murphy appeared for himself
and had as associate counsel, James
j. ONIalley Mr.. Evans was represent
ed by Charles Il. Oliver. Opposed to
| them were John F. Scragg, solicitor of
the poor district; Major Everett War
rem and Joseph O'Brien.
The respondents We're to have made
answer, yesterday, but they elected to
proceed on a motion to quash the writ
OF quo warranto secured by the re.
lators.
Major Warren, who spoke for the
! respondents first attacked the Murphy
writ on the ground that he could not be
a relator, in case of this kind, such
duty, under the law devolving eNclu-
sively on the district attorney.
In reply to this Mr.. o'Malley, con-
tended lat it is clearly established by
recel decisions that in a case where
the t1e Of an office is at issue Il pri-
vatV party having a claim on the Office
can act as relator for the common
wealth.
1t was next argued by Major War
rem that court should not have granted
the writ, but only Il rule for a writ, so
that the respondents might have an
opportunity of being heard. 1t is ad-
mitted that court has discretionary
power but the respondents should have
had the opportunity, it was contended
to argue on the propriety of granting
the writ.
COURT KNOWS THE CASE.
Mr.. OMalleys reply to this was that
the court had such Il thorough ac-
quaintance with the case, it was in
position to exercise the soundest dis
cretion and needed no light on the
subject from counsel.
A point which Major Warren dwelt
on at length was the fact that the
claimants had failed to make personal
demand for the office on Messrs. Dick
ert and Paine, having contented them-
selves with making q demand of the
board to be seated.
Mr. Murphy replied to this when he
came to make his supplementary argu-
ment. He cOntended it was immaterial
and unnecessary to make a personal
demand of the respondents. be-
cause the claimants did not recognize
Messrs. Dickert and Paine as being in
office. Speaking particularly of the
Dckert case, Mr.. Murphy stated that
Mr.. Dickerts term of office expired
March is, 1892 and he was neither ap-
pointed nor elected after that.
Judge Newcomb at this iuncture
wanted to know what Dickert had to
give that Murphy could demand, and
Judge Kelly inquired in a significant
way as to whom Major Warren repre-
sented.
The contention that there is no poll
tical machinery still existing whereby
IL valid election can be held in
the old South Ward and Hyde
Park borough was next raised.
Major Warren pointed out that the
creation Of twenty-one wards, at the
incorporation of the city of Scranton,
destroyed the existence of the old
wards as far as the possibility of con-
Quoting elections therein was concerned
By way Of example he pointed out that
the judge of election of a district of
the Fifth ward of Scranton, in a muni-
cipal election, could not be considered
an election officer of old Hyde Park
borough
\ SAVING CLAUSE.
Mr.. Murphy contended that there
WAS a saving clause in the special |
act incorporating the city of Scranton,
which provided explicitly that the act |
should in no way interfere With the |
existence of the Scranton poor district |
MtJor Warren next argued that Mr. |
Dicliert had II right to hold over until |
his successor was duly elected and |
qualified.
Mr.. Murphy admitted that it was
provided in the general law for elective |
officers that they should hold over until |
their successors We're duly elected and |
qualified, but in this case there was the |
distinction that Mr.. Dickert was an |
appointed officer, appointed for a per- |
iod of sixteen days The poor district |
act, it was further contended specific |
ally provides that appointments shall |
be simply Ito fill an uneXpired term"
In the Evans case a specific reason |
advanced for the quashing of the writ |
was that the claimant admits he re-
ceived votes from the third district OF |
the Sixth ward, which was until re-
Gently II part of Lackawanna town
ship and never included in old Hyde |
Park borough.
Nh Oliver asserted this made no diff |
ference under the decisions.
The court reserved its decision on the |
motion. If the writs are quashed it will |
be incumbent on the claimants to pro-
ceed anew or give up the fight. If
the wrts are sustained the respondents
will be called upon to make answer to
the REALTORS complaints or suffer judg-
ment for the claimants.
First Glass Tickets to San Francisco