Litchfield enquirer., 1868-08-20
The Supreme Court of Errors.

s me docket or the Court was very large
 one, this year; fifteen cases were tried, and
 about half decided The points
 raised in those disposed of, were as
 far as we can ascertain, as follows:-
 C7a'1es 11ea's Appeal from Pro5ate.-
 The point involved in this case was tech nical one, of little interest except to law yers. Decree of the Court of Probate re. versed. Argued by A. s. Treat and o. S. Seymour for appellants, and Hubbard for appellees.
 Charles Treot cs. Hn'vey Trem No iudo- ment entered, the case being practically disposed of by the foregoing decision.
 .Joh" c. Calhins rs. John F5:y.-Action on negotiable note for $500. Defence-want of consideration, fraud, and intoxication of the defendant at the time of giving the note. The plaintiff was 6ona.fae holder. to whom the note had been negotiated be- fore due by the payee. The audit OTIS find Ing IS as folloWs:-" That the defendant signed the note with his own hand. bnt bv reason of lntoxication he was incapable of understanding the consequences of his act, and unfit to transact business: also that he had sufficient consciousness to ro- member the next morning that he had signed the note, and that he therefore re- pudlated the contract" The real point in issue was whether the intoxication was complete. Judgment for the plaintiff. Ar gued by Patterson for plaintiff, and Hub bard and Warner for defendant
 .Le''is M Te1vW rs. Zoacn of Cozebyook. - Action for defendant on negotiable note for $100, given by this town to a vol unteer. The note was transferred immedi- ately. Terrill only served few weeks and deserted. The question was whether this avoided tie note Judgment for the plaintiff: Argued by G. c. Woodru if and Hitchcock for plaintiff, and o. s. Sey- mour for defendant. Judgt for pl'f. .,..
 Simeon 4. Wa1ling os. George Potter Action to recover S60 lost by the plaintiff at the defendants inn in Kent, under such circumstances as would entitle the plaintiff to recover provided he was at the time a guest He WAS residing about half mile from the inn in question, came there one evening, lodged and took breakfast there. The counsel for the defendant claimed that he was not @ traveller or wayfaring man but neighbor, and did not come within the law regarding inn-keeper and guest. Judgment for the plaintiff. Argued by Hubbard and Andrews for plaintiff, o. S. Seymour and Knapp for def't On the plaintiffs brief we are little surprised to notice reference to the scene between Falstaff and Mrs. Quickly wherein old Jack exclaims, ''Shall I not take
 mine ease in mine inn, but I shall have my pocket picked?"
 Joel Wards appeal.1ToDa Pro6ate.-Sever- al points were involved and until the Jud- ge's opinion is received it will not appear on which the case is decided Decree af- firmed. Huntington for appellant, Goth ren and Seymour for the appellees.
 0o'rr 1Fecreelng the specific performance ot parol contract for the sale, of land The petitioner had made improvements buildino a dwelling house, fences, &c. Decree af- hrmed. Perkins and Woodruff for nlain. tlft Ill error, Peet and Andrews for def't in error. o- Ill otate os. WiHiam H. Green.-On trial of tnls case, evidence was admitted on the part ot the prosecution to prove that dreen had another wife living at the time ot hls marriage with the woman he is char 5ed With having murdered. It was proved 'lso that 1t was under an alias and bv means of forged letters that he was intro luced to the latter. This evidence was ad- altted on the strength of State vs. Wat lns' 1n the 9th Conn. Reports, which de- lded that proof that husband was living q adulterous intercourse with another wo- lan, was admissible in his trial for the lufoer ot his wife, to rebut the presump- on ot innocence arising from the usual 1ectlon between husband and wife. The e1ence claimed new trial on the ground lat ln this case the evidence was plainly admissible, since the fact of the bigamy lsed no presumption of want of affec- on for the second wife, but rather the ntrary. They claimed also that the alias o forged letters were matters entirely reign to the issue. New trial not grant- . Argued by Sedgwick & Peet for State.
 t. W. Seymour for prisoner. a HE CATTLE DIsEAsE.-Mr. T. RDodoe