Morning journal and courier., 1891-05-23

Yesterday the short calendar day in this court and for @ short calendar session an un- usually large amount of business trans acted.
 The first case was the appeal from probate o; Amanda C. Chard, concerning the will of John c. Chard. Attorney Hotchkiss, for the appellee moved that the reasons of appeal be made more specific Attorney Bristol replied that the req syen fer s the M cient: The court refused to allow Attorney Hotchkiss' motion.
 probate, Attorney Merriman of Meriden asked for more specific reasons, but Judge, Prentice tion is one made by Enos T. Thomas of Merfden, and involves the distribution of $s,OOO.
 The suit of Joseph Holland, aged two years, of pfaint, which states that the plaintiff was run on account of the negligence of a brakeman. The attorney declared that it was not stated how the child came to be on the track, and because the child had no right to be on the track there was no reasonable ground for action. Attorney Holden replied that it made no difference how he of ns every precaution to prevent accident. In this case the peadings set up that the tn & brakeman n had the accident, but neglected to do so Decision was reserved.
 In the well, known insurance suit of Henry H. Hall against the Norwich Union Fire Insurance which was ratified by the court.
 In Israel SchoenS suit against William S. Dermody, bond of $40 to prosecute was al lowed
 The Meriden case of F. J. Mueller vs. Gustave defendant failed to comply with the order of the court.
 borne & Cheesman company, the receiver was ordered to pay the accrued interest on $57,OOO
 Then followed an interesting debate between Attorneys Ely and Clark of Hartford in the in terpeader suit brought by the supreme lodge Edwin Bartlett adjuster of the Hartford Life shall pay the s, GOO insurance policy of the late William Johnson. formerlya carriage maker of son is brother of the deceased, and Mrs. Bart lett is the daughter of the deceased's second wife, who died before he did. Attorney Ely, who Johnston, moved to expunge certain portions of the answer, and also argued demurrer Mrs Bartlett was not relative of the deceased and could not under the laws of the order be a beneficiary The policy was first made out for Mrs. Johnson's benefit and after her death was reassigned to James Johnston Attorney Sidney E. Clarke replied that while Mrs. Bartlett did not have a legal right to the money she had an equi- ston at one time was hard pressed for money and c fH Re cy @ n fas SsWg sgns d of Protection. He also claimed that JamesJohn- ston secured the signature of his brother re-
 
 | ing him to sign it when he was on his death bed and lying in comatose condition. Decision was reserved.
 l The following cases were continued until next Friday: Platt Brothers the City of Water bury, New England Terminal company vs. the First National bank of South Norwalk, Fulton vs. Anthony, the Essex Savings bank vs. Wrinn, Kyle vs. Dale, Tanyane Maltby, and Mosher vs. the Birmingham Plane company, were con tnued for one week.
 The divorce cases were then taken up and the following were granted
 Jennie E. Norton of New Haven granted a divorce from her husband Joel G. Norton, also of this city, the ground of intolerable cruelty They had been married twelve years. Almira Hall of Meriden was divorced from Emory O. Hall on the ground of desertion. They were married February 3, 1876. In April 1878, he left her and has remained away since. Kate Roberts, also of Meriden, was divorced from Enoch Roberts on the ground of assertion. They were married in 1881. Her husband never contributed anything for her support, and three years after their marriage left for parts un- known. He has been located within 8 few weeks | in Mitchell, Dakota. | Harriet Jamison colored, of this city, asked for a divorce from Lamborne Jamison on the grounds of adultery and desertion. Judge Prem tice agreed to grant the divorce condition that 1 the record of the city court which shows that Jamson was punished for misconduct should be exhibited to him next week. The divorce cases of Martha Clapp vs. Joseph L. Clapp and Ida M. Robbins vs Edmund A. Rob bins were continued for one week. The court then adjourned at 1915 until Tuesday morning at | 10 o'clock.