Morning journal and courier., 1880-02-25

the Judge rendered his decision follows haven't very much to say about the case. The testimony l seems to be sometime in the spring of 1874 Mr. Ives brought his application for highway in the ] town of East Haven. The petition dated the 23d of April On the first day of April two of the Select men accepted service and the petition returned to court. There but eleven days before the court sat to which it made returnabe. Charles Bray, the special agent of the town, signed an agree nent with Mr. that the court select three good, disinterested persons committee to try the facts. The did not appear before the court The court prescribed the time and place Of hearing appoint ed as the committee Judge Morris of New Haven, Judge Cornwall of Cheshire and Marcus L. Baldwin of Woodbridge They heard the matter for twelve | days and the town appeared by counsel, and also | Rogers and others appeared before them and were | heard Objections made at that tirne appears by the finding of Judge Beardslsy. The respondents claimed before the comm ttee that the petition not regularly served. The committee said that | point for the court to decide. After viewing the ground and hearing the evidence they laid highway at the October term of this court, 1874 Reonstrances and perhaps subsequently filed setting forth grounds why the report should not be accept ed. One of the grounds that the Se1ectmen who accepted service had Another remonstrance by McNen was that the committee did not him with notice, but the officer made return Of having left
 copy the petition at his usual place of abode But in fact not get notice in that way. He in New York and the officer left copy of the petition with McNeis partner at McNeil's place of business, and partner told the sheriff that would send copy to him. which done. When he back his counsel told him not to go before the committee, and at his suggestion he did ot. The parties heard before Judge Bsardsey last fal and judging from the in which this hearing has been conducted all the quetons tn the learned counsel could think of then pressed, and Judge Bear daley after having heard the same, oYerruled all the points of exception to the committees report except namely the point in reference to alternative assessments Nothing is specified in the statute ground of remonstrance except irregular improper conduct the part Of the committee. Judge Beardslsy held that the con- mitee report regular and proper except to ths assessments and that it should be delivered back the commit ittee to be completed and made def mite and certain. Now the committee did, as they supposed, complste the repor: and make it definite and certain, and returned it to this court. Judge Beardsley not having time to consider it, it came over to this term of the court and several reonstrances filed. Grave questions were raised, as said the other day. One to whether the Ssectnen could waive notice for the town and land owners. It Is claimed that they did not have power and that the whole matter is void. If they should on and work the road and ould turn out that the proceedings were void, might be matter of great harm to the petitioner. From the proceedings which the respon dents have taken since the beginning of this case it doeInt look if they considered the process void But Judge Bsardsley has decided that the seectmen could waive notice and have great respect for Judge Beardsley and should be inclined to hesitate long be- fore should overru1e decision of his. If he is wrong the respondent can have the matter reviewed by the Supreme Court. don't think thst shall pass upon any question that he has decided. The remon- srances to the supplemental report have the right to consider Substantially the grounds are raised in the that raised before Judge Beardsley. One of the grounds that the committee had right to Oiv A f0 be heard. It is quite evident to my mind that Judge Beardsley did not consider it necessary, or Judge Morris ths chairman of the committee the rest of the committee. If Judge Bsardsey had considered necessary he would have ordered notice of time and place of hearing to be given. If the committee had considered it necessary they would have refused to
 ac ted ill notice had been given They had been
 the ground they had all the facts and had all
 the data of counsel and they had reported the matter
 to Judge Beardsey, and wanted him to say which
 assessment they should consider. Judge Beardsley said to them are to decide whether shall be adopted the other. do not think it is sufficient ground for saying that there should have been order Of notice and hearing It is evident to my mind, and think it must be evident to the minds of the counsel that the report in reference
 damages and benefits had been referred to Judge Beardsey he would have had no difficulty in coming
 the conclusion that the mattar all right. Now
 asked in some of the remonstrances to grant new
 trial that the remonsrants be heard upon the
 question of convenience and necessity. There is
 law cited to sustain their claims and courtesy would not allow 1t. IL would bs unheard of to grant trial before the is finished Ths law does not fa vor litigation. It is the policy Of the law that end should be put to it at the earliest practicable moment. Most of ths reasons argued hsre, and the mont substantial reasons, which most proper to urge be fore the committee under he claim
 that the road not needed. This nothing to do with that question. The report not sent back to the committee to investigate that question. It
 was not referred back to it for such purpose It sent back merely for the committee to complete the report to damages and benefits. The case has been argued with unusual ability. Probably there individual interests both sides. I have
 deavored to look at the matter canddy. Nothing that
 may say will work hardship to the respondents They can move for jury to reassess damages. MT. Bald win claims that they too high some gay they
 low One the report ought to be sent back be-
 the damages are too high and the others say it
 ought to be sent back becsuss they too low The petitioner executed bond to work the road, and
 don't that the town will suffer any hardship, when
 the road is first laid out at rate the expense of
 working the road will be paid by the petitioner, the town may receive much than the expense of
 maintaining the road in the Of taxes in that
 vicinity. feel bound to take Judge Beardsleys
 clusions to the law of the until the Supreme Court holds otherwise. of ths opinion that the
 ought be accepted for anything that appears in the rernonstrances The next step is for the spondents to move for jury to reassess damages
 they it, The statute gives them that right, and will give them till Thursday to make such motion. The following divoroes grantsd: Mary Pardee from Sias Pardee; married March 31, 1s44; on the ground of intemperance.
 Georgians Wilcox from Daniel B. Wilcox married February 27, 1870 on the ground of intemperance and cruelty. Two children given to the peti- tioner.
 Eliza Journeynan from Joseph Journeyman; mar ~sa5 2 temperance.
 The divorce case Of Georgiana M. Whiting, of this
 city, George A. Tyler for petitioner) Nathan B. Whiting, of Hamden, {Henry stoddard counsel) not tried It will probably be settled. The ground is
 intolerable cruelty and the responder bill for general misconduct.
 The following assignments made at the bar
 meeting held yesterday afternoon:
 Wednesday, Feb. 25-Gavreau vs. Lamontagua- Thursday, Feb. 26-Freeman ys. Freeman, Evans vs Lanyon.
 Friday, Feb. 27-Johnson N. Y., N. H. & H. Railroad Company, Townsend Savings Bank Marble nisi, Reed vs. New Haven.
 Tuesday, March .2-Trsat vs. Smith, Tompkins vs. Peck, filling vs. New Haven. Barnes vs. Crockett. Wednesday, March 3-MGes Treat & Clark, State vs. shelton Russell vs Lyon Coleman Foley ct al.
 Tuesday, March 9-Kendrick ct al. Bassett al.
 Board Of Finance of Waterbury Webster ct al.,
 Boughton Tremain, etc., Gary & Hobson vs. Cin- ton, Allen vs. New Haven Northampton Company, Wednesday, March lO-Aimes ys Clark Thursday, March 11-Cowell vs. Grier. City COurt-Criminal Sfde-Judge Par dee.
 Alexander Cummings and Michael Corcoran, breach
 Of the peace, injuring building, etc.. February 25
 Thomas Carboy, same, to February 25; John Hig- gins, breach of the psace to February 25. Nathan