Litchfield enquirer., 1860-12-06
Superior COurt-NOv. Term, 1860
 JIDGR WAIno PREsIDISc

JUDGE WALDO PRESIDING.
 23. He,nan Chapin vs. Darid Baker ct als.- Plaintiff nonsuited. Foster for Plaintiff Bar bour for Defendant.
 25. Isaac #. Smih vs. Higley & Wilcor.- New Hartford case, to recover the price of cer- tain liquors. Issue for the Plaintiff against both the Defendants for sum of S362l4 dama- ages, and his costs. Goodwin for Plaintiff Foster for Defendant.
 29. Ashbel Gilman ct nzs. vs. Erastus Balc1- acin.-Action to recover damage for diverting water from paper-mill of Plaintiffs, near Litch- field Depot. Case still under advisement For Plaintiff, Wood,uffs, Hubbard and Ransom For Defendant. Barbour and Sedgwick. 3l. Ea,uard ?. Hunt vs. Samuel HitchcocA ct als.-Pctition for new trial on newly discov. cred evidence. Case settled without trial Plaintiff paying s4OO. For Plaintiff, Peet- For Defendant, Hubbard and Ransom.
 38. g. F J Root vs. Wm. Manchester.- Barkhamsted case Action for diverting water from certain mill of Plaintiffs. Case still un- decided. For Plaintiff, Goodwin-For Defend ant, Hall.
 George D. Wadhams vs. 4. c. Brady.-Ac- ton against Defendant as the endorser of a note. Undecided. Hubbard and Ransom for Plaintiff Barbour for Defendant.
 State vs. Mortimer s. VideAo- Charged with the murder of his two children, Phebe Ann, and Lucy A. Videtto aged Is and II, at Bridgewater on the night of Monday, October sth, 186O
 A large number of witnesses from Bridgewa- ter who had known the prisoner from childhood were present and testified to his general charac- ter for sobriety, industry, peaceable conduct and affectionate disposition toward his family. It was urged by the prosecution that the deed was committed in frenzy of anger, because the chil- dren would not consent to join the " Shakers ? as for some reason he wished them to do-and it was also urged, somewhat strongly, by the junior counsel for the State, that the prisoners atheistical tendencies were such as to afford Q reason, together with his poverty, for wishing to put himself and his posterity out fthe world.
 The defense urged insanity, exhibited both from the horrible, nature of the case-his previ- ous regard and affection for his children, his present action in speaking of tho deed, his set tied melancholic frame of mind, and madness in herited Several physicians testified to his pres ent insanity.
 The arguments both upon behalf of the State, by Attorney General Sedgwick and 8. D. Or ton, Esq, and for the Prisoner, by H. B. Graves, Esq, and H. M. Dutton, Esq, were unusually able and excellent; and the Charge by Judge ELLSWORTH was by far the ablest Charge to a Jury, in capital case, that has been given from this Bench for many years. The Jury retired at about o'clock on Wednesday.
 At half past four the Jury brought in their verdict, which was Guilty of Murder in the second degree" The Prisoner received the verdict seemingly with entire indifference. Judge Ellsworth then proceeded to pass the sen tence which was imprisonment for life in the States Prison at Wethersheld.
 DIVORCE CASES
 Jane 4. BeckwiM vs Stephen Bsckoih- Grounds Improper Conduct. Bill granted Graves and Dutton for Plaintiff Seymour for Defendant.
 June Byiggs vs. Darid Briggs-Ground- Intemperancc and Cruelty. Bill granted. Graves and Dutton for Plaintiff.
 Ellen J Csmmes man vs. John Gsmnaeyman.- Ground Bill granted. For Plain tiff, E. Johnson.
 Mary J. Giford vs. Henry 4. GDord.- Ground -Desertion. Granted. For Plaintiff. Hickox.
 Hsldah A. Thompson vs. Horace Thompson. Ground Habitual Intemperance. Granted. Hall for Plaintiff.
 Charles H. Thtae vs. Estber lM 1Male. Ground Sc. Bill granted. For Plaintiff, Graves and Dutton.
 WiAian, Wiuiams vs. Lydia Williams Ground-Habitual Intemperance. Bill granted. " oodrpf and Son for Plaintiff