Morning journal and courier., 1892-09-23

In the city court yesterday the alleged
theft cases against Mary Fsssar of sos
Congress avenue, who is accused of having
stolen bread from Baker STEERS wagon
were continued to September %.
In the probate court yesterday Fred G.
Lum and George K. Ingersoll were ap.
pointed commissioners on the insolvent
estate of the Bristol Stove Manufacturing
company. =
The case of Mary DAILY against F. A.
Caldwell, to recover damage done by Cad.
we'll as tenant of her house, was stricken
from the docket yesterday at the request
of both parties. The case came up before
Justice Green.
The charge of manslauehter against
Edward L. Potter of 80 South Water
street, who accidentally shot and killed
his wife was nolled in the city court yester-
day morning.
The Central National bank and the Co.
lumbar bank of New York city, have in
stituted suits through their attorneys,
Alling, Webb and Morehouse, to recover
81, 900 and 81 900 respectively from Jacob
several months ago. When the failure oc.
Cured the banks held Morris's paper for
the amount for which they now sue. Pa
pers in the suit were served yesterday
morning by Constable SpieRel.
THE CITY SUED.
Joseph E. Derby a wood turner residing
at SO Clay street, yesterday brought suit
against the city of New Haven for Sc, 900
for damages sustained to his property and
injuring the health of his wife, lately de-
ceased, by the building of sewer in
Shelter street. The papers were served
upon City Clerk Downes by Deputy Sheriff
Frericks and summoned the city to appear
in the superior court to answer the claim
of the plaintiff on the first Tuesday in o.
tober.
PECK BISHOP SUED.
George L. Sanford of Denver, Col, who
conducts the travelling musical organiza-
ton known as the Sanford Family, has
brought suit to recover 81, 900 damages
from Peck & Bishop. Alling, Webb &
Morehouse are the plaintiffs attorney and
the case will be tried before the superior
court, the writ being returnable on the
hAoc oooooy "a OSSOoo1s
Mr.. Sanford claims that on March 90,
1888, he stored household furniture and
brio a-brao at Peck & Bishops. Then he
went on the road with his company, and
when, in August, 1892, he rendered pay
ment for the storage, Peck & Bishop re-
fused to accept it and failed to return the
furniture. Mrs. Sanford, wife of the COM
plainant, claims that on two separate oc-
casions she went to the office of Peck &
Bishop to pay the bill for storage. On the
first occasion the clerk in charge said that
he could not find the account, but would
look 1t up. On her second visit
was just prior to her-departure for the
west she was again told that the account
had not been found, but they would look
the matter up and write to her and inform
her of the amount of the bill. This, she
claims, they never did. Among the effects
sold were her husbands discharge papers
from the army and an antique piece of fur
niture which she valued on account of its
antiquity. This she subsequently traced to
New York, and when she endeavored to re-
cover 1t fabulous price was demanded for
10. Mrs. Sanford also claims that her sister,
Mrs. B. Powers of this city, also had q
similar lot of goods on storage with the
Arm and these were also sold, but the firm
made settlement with her. Mrs. Sanford
also claims that the sale of her effects was
not legally advertised. Her husbands dis
charge papers were also In the lot sold and
were never heard from.
Peck & Bishop say that the property
was stored with them four years ago and
that they never heard from Sanford or re-
oeived payment from him during that
time. Therefore, as 10 customary. they
sold the property for storage, and claim
they had right TO do so. Property of
stable Spiegel. A receipt was given for
the property under attachment immedi-
stely, and 1t was released.