Morning journal and courier., 1880-12-08
Sournal arlN CGurier.
Morning, Dec. 8. 1880.
Local News.
The Court Record.
Supreme Court or Errors.

Supreme Court of Errors.
 This court came in yesterday morning at o'clock. All the judges were present except Judge Carpenter, and his place was supplied by Judge Beardsley. Chief Justice Park pre- sided
 The first case heard was that of Erwin D. Hall, of Meriden, vs the City of Meriden. The case is an appeal from the Board of Compensation of Meriden, in 1874, with reference to the appraisal and assessment of damages and benefits to persons owning property on Grown street, Meriden. The plaintiff claimed $1, 1,5OO damages over and above all benefits, while only $500 was al- lowed. In 1878 the grade adopted in 1874 was rescinded and new one established, and under this the Board found that the damages and benefits to Hall were equal. The case was heard by John w. filling sitting as a committee of the Superior Court, and on his finding Judge Hovey rendered judgment that Hall had no claim against the city of Meri- den. A motion in error followed, which was granted, and this motion was argued by O. H. and J. F. Platt for plaintiff and Radcliffe Hicks for the defendant.
 The next case argued was that of Eli Good rich vs Kimberly and Scranton. In this case the plaintiff claims that in 1869 James Dawson mortgaged to Philander Hopson, of Branford, some land, receiving therefor note of $452. In 1871 the land was mortgaged by Dawson to Charles G. Kimberly and Charles w. Scranton, subject to the mortgage to Hopson, and in 1878 heconveyed the remainder of the interest in the land to Charles G. Kimberly. In 1869 Hopson assigned his interest in the promissory note to the plaintiff, and ten years later he quit-claimed his interest in said mortgaged premises to the same plaintiff, so that the latter held both the note and the mortgage security. Dawson, Hopson, Kim berIy and Scranton all refused to pay the note, nor could the plaintiff get possession of the property. So the affair went into court. Kimberly averred that the property was sold for payment of taxes and that he bought it, and further that he had conveyed it to Edward M. Kimberly, of Branford So the latter was made party to the suit. Goodrich won his case in court, and 1t was taken by the respondents to the Supreme Court on motion in error. l.. B. Munson for petitioner; Edmund Zacher for respond ents.
 The next case, that of James Gallagher vs. Albert B. Dodge, was submitted on briefs. This was a-case in which the plaintiff ob- tained temporary injunction restraining the defendant from erecting a show case that would obstruct the view of the goods in the window of the store occupied by the plain tiff's tenants. The injunction was dissolved by the Superior Court, and the plaintiff be- ing aggrieved at the decision made 8 motion in error and asked that the judgment of the Superior Court be revised. Doolittle, Stod- dard and Bennett for plaintiff Baldwin and Whiting for defendant.
 The next case argued was that of E. s. Rowland vs. Robert Rowe. This is an action brought by the indorser of a promissory note to recover the amount of the note of the de- fendant, who was an accommodation en- dorser. On the 1st of January, 1880, the de- fendant, then residing in East Haven, en- dorsed note for $500 made by one George Hubbard, payable six months after it's date at the Second National bank in this city, and Hubbard took the note to the plaintiff, who discounted it. On the 2Sth of February, 1880, the defendant, Rowe removed from the town of East Haven to the town of New Haven, and took up his residence at the corner of James and Exchange streets. The note was pro- tested and notice sent to the endorser at East Haven, and it was not received by the en- dorser until several days later. In the court below judgment was rendered for the defend ant on the ground that due diligence had not been used in sending the notice to learn the residence of the defendant. The plaintiff submits that the court erred in it's rulings and decisions and moves for a trial. Hamilton for plaintiff, Case and Deming for defendant.
 The next case to be heard is that of George Turner vs Edward Davis. This is a writ of error brought upon the judgment of a justice of the peace in proceedings of summary pro- cess.
 Court adjourned until this morning at g o'clock.