Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1880-07-29

Decisions have been rendered in the re-
mainder of the cases tried at the May Term of
the Superior Court, as follows:
s. Hart Cuboer's APPEAL from PrObGte.-
This was in effect a conflict of jurisdiction
between Probate Courts. Proceedings were
first commenced in the New Haven court;
but it was found that the deceased
person, the settlement of whose estate was in
question, was actually resident of Woodbury.
at the time of his death. Messrs. Munson and
Woodbury. had no right, however, to treat the
New Haven proceedings as a nullity and take
jurisdiction of the estate without reference to
them. Messrs Graves and Huntington ar
gued on the other hand that the Woodbury.
court had right so to proceed and are sus-
tanned in their claim by the Supreme Court.
Ec rel. NeIson W. Coe VS.. Orsra,us r.
Fyter. This was a mandamus to compel the
collection of town tax on an addition of
over $50, 900 made to the list of the COe Brass
Co., of Wolcottville, by the Board of Relief of
Torrington. 1t had been voted in town meet
ing to abate the tax and the collector did not
collect it. 1t was claimed by the defence that
the town had right to abate the tax, ard that
even if it had no such right, the plaintiff had
not shown himself entitled to a mandalnus.
The claim of the plaintiff is sustained by the
Supreme Court. Huntington and Andrews
for plaintiff; E. w. Seymour and G. G.
Woodruff, for defendant.
james Huntington, States Atty. vs. John
H. McNala0r, ct 0l-This was proceeding in
contempt brought on motion IN error from the
District Court, where the defendants
sentenced to fine and Imprisonment. The
by Mcmahon and others were seized in Win
sted, and, on trial before a magistrate, were
adiudged confscated. The claimants appeal
ed, but before the appeal copies had. been filed
in the District Court procured writ of re-
plevin which one of the defendants issued as
justice, though clearly beyond his jurisdiction,
and another, Deputy Sheriff Chatfeld served,
taxing the liquors away from Mr.. Forbes Gel
lar where they had been left for safe keeping
by the constable who seized them. States
Attorney Huntington brought process for con-
tempt before the District court against all
concerned in the replevin proceedings, and
was assisted in the trial below and in this
court by Gov. Andrews. Several grounds of
defence were set up by Judge DeForest, of
BridpenOrt and Fem of Winsted The SIN
preme Court sustain the decree of Judge Fly.
Ter, which sentenced John H. McMahon to go
days imprisonment, and to pay 800 fine; P.
w. Wren, to 800, fne P. J. Leonard to 80
days in Jail, and $50 fine; J. M. Chatfeld, to
30 days in Jail and $40 fine.
Tal1naadge Baker 0s Geo. II. Ba51oin ct
M.-This was suit against the sureties of the
late Sheriff Baldwin. 1t was urged in defence
that the sheriffs default did not occur till after
his term of Office had expired and that conse-
quently the sureties were not liable and also
that there was no evidence of the value of the
property originally attached. The Supreme
Court sustained Judge Hovey in rendering
judgment for the plaintiff Andrews and
Kllbourn for plf.; Hickox 6 Kellogg for
defts
EG Cohpaugh 0s Isaac 4. Nortsrop came
up from the District Court on motion for new
trial for verdict against evidence. The Su-
preme Court advise a new trial. McMahon
and Warner for plaintiff; Taylor, of Danbury,
for defendants.