Morning journal and courier., 1891-11-20
Superior Court Civil Side Judge
 Thayer.

The writ of p -ohib:tion feature of the suits of Fayerweather & Ladieu of New York and the Goodyear Rubber Glove Manufactory company of Naugatuck against the Union Waterproof Shoe company and Messrs. Clayton Monson and L. Wheeler Beecher of this city, was decided by Judge Thayet in the sup .rior court yesterday.
 The writ, which was brought by the law firm of Attorneys Webb & Morehouse, was to prevent, Judge Robertson of the probate court, from ap- pointing a trustee over the Union Waterproof Shoe company.
 Judge Thayer decided to dismiss the writ An appeal will be taken to the superior court
 Probate Court-Judge Robertson.
 The contest over the will of the late Mrs. John Bradley was resumed before Judge Robertson yesterday morning. The side of the husband, John s. Bodley, the contes; ant in the case, was taken up yesterday. The first witness called was Dr. M. c. O'Connor, the physician who attended the testatrix during her final illness. He testi- fled that he called on July 23 and found Mrs Bodley unconscious, suffering from paralysis and apoplexy. He saw her also on Friday, July 24 the day she made the will and testified that she was then in almost the same condition. She could not talk or respond to questions asked her, and seemed, if anything, more dull. To his mind she was not competent to transact any business, be- cause she was not able to recognize those about her, and was unable to talk, owing to paralysis of the tongue.
 upon the woman before her death, testified that Mrs. Bodiey was unable to talk and seemed in- capable of understanding what was said to her fled that to his mind Mir. Bodley's condition was such that she was unable to make a will. Much of his testimony was in reference to hypothetical questions.
 Mrs. Julia M DuPlessy of wallingford, the
 nurse who attended Mrs: Bodlsy, testified as to her condition when she began her duties, which was much the same as that testified to by Dr. | mony was in reference to conversations
 she had had with Mrs. Holmes, the legatee, in which the latter had told her that Mrs Bodley had made her will and left her property to her 1 in trust for her husband. She stated that she had had conversations with Bodley snd had i'm | plored him to be a Christian man and bear with | fortitude the death of his wife, which was only l question of time, and had even prayed with him and had endeavored to induce him to give up his worldly life and become g Christian. She testi- | was an immoral man and her efforts for his ref ormation were simply those of Christian lady under the circumstances.
 W. J. Atwater was called te give evidence as to the testator's mental condition and then Mrs
 she tha sse had had with Mrs Du Plessy and had told her that she
 would endeavor to do what was right by Mir. 1 Bodley provided he proved him self Q man and | paid his debts to her satisfaction. She also said
 that Mrs. Du Plessy knew of MT Bodley's immor-
 al practices and it was this fact that induced her | to try and reform him. The reason she had not
 given to MT. Bodley any of the estate was be- l good life and sne reiterated that the first time
 she clamed 1!as the the property was after Mir BodIey Hatch his sister-in-law, and it was to carry out | Mrs. Bodley 5 wishes and not let her husband
 have any of the money if he persisted in going with her, that she claimed the property. Several attempts to bring in details to Mir Bodley's | immoral practices were excluded from the evi- 1 dence.