Litchfield enquirer., 1880-02-19
Woodbury.

Woodbury.
 w" the esteemed correspondent of your paper writing from Bantam, in Yorr 'ast issue. l asks question of our old friend, HI. N, ," yonr long time correspondent, iron, Goshen, who can give us desirable inforplation about ! almost everything we desire to know, as fol- 1 lows, viz: Allow us to ask H. N. one ques 1 tion. The birthday of one of our young la- dies occurs on the 29th of February. Hence she enjoys only one in four years This year l it happens on Sunday. When will it again occur on Sunday, or, in other words. when shall we again have five Sundays in Febrna- y"
 Now presume H. N. will, in almost one second. tell "W." that if he will count right forward, he will find that there will be no February containing five Sundays till the year 1920, as there has been no preceding year with five Sundays since 1852, and the nearest one proceeding that was February, 1924 In other words, counting forward or backward from 1880, one will find nc February containing five Sundays excepting in bissextile year, nor unless the first day of January in that year shall occur oh Thursday. X.
 The N. Y. Tribune discusses the problem at greater length, as follows, explaining the req son why forty years will intervene before the next recurrence of five Sundays in February. whereas twenty eight years is the more con- mon period:
 N B. Webster, of Norfolk, Va, writes to the Tribune: ''There will not be five Su6- days again in February for forty years, viz. Tn 192O and such recurrence can only happen three times in the twentieth century. There will be five Mondays in February in 1892, 1904, 1882, 1860, and 1888, and also five Sat nrdays in February in 1908, 1886, 1864 and 1929. The reason of these apparent ano,na- lies is that the year 1900 will not be leap year Saturday will be New Years Day in 1898, but not again till 1910, period of twelve years, although-in 1881 and 1887, after only years. there will be a recurrence of Saturday for Jan aury l."
 GOSHEN, Feb. 16, 1880.
 Elitor Euqnirer-Sr-I notice the follow ing from youp Goshen correspondent ''H. NJ Il rather think that the story in the Hartford and New York papers flat our repsentative MT. John M. Wadhams told is true It was that Goshen man last summer on his death bed sent for a Litchfield lawyer to draw his will, and having lawsuit with his neph- ew he sent for him and they shook hands, agree ing to end the suit without trial, each one paying his own costs Tout they were surprised to find that they must pay for forty-t~o term fees each at $10 term-$94O]" That part of the above statement included in the brackets is not true, and how or where your worthy correspondent H. N obtained any informa- that should lead him to rnther think it was true, am puzzled to know. as he has bad no conversation with the writer of this who is supposed to know the facts in regard to it quite alluded to. The writer has lad two suits in court. each of about ten years duration. and does not attribute any blame or fault to coun- sel that they were not disposed of sooner. They doubtless would have been had the parties to the suits desired it. In regard to the expenses of said suits, if any one shonld feel aggrieved at exorbitant charges l think it most naturally would be the parties interested in said suits and who were obliged to foot the bills. can only speak for myself in this matter, and have only to say that am perfectly satis6e ed with the charges of my counsel as we'll as with the termination of said suits and have no reason or disposition to find any fault with the law, the court, or my counsel. NEPHEW.