Morning journal and courier., 1892-03-12
THE COURT RECORD.
Common Pleas Court-Criminal Side Judge Deming.

Common m Pleas sCOurt-Crtm1nal S1de- |
 Judge Deming.
 James McMahon, a dealer in butter, yesterday | n this court paid $42 for violation of the oleo- laws. As this was the only case ready for trial court adjourned until next Tues day morning at 1oo'clock.
 Probate Court-Judge Robertson.
 Some exciting features developed during the hearing in the Coleman will contest in this court yesterday. William Coleman, nephew of the tes- tator, was the first witness called.
 On his direct examination the witness testified that he had charge of MT. Coleman's oyster busi- ness almost completely since September last MT. Coleman's mind during the month of Janu- ary was exceptionally good and as good as he had ever seen in him. He had worked for him ten years. During MT. Coleman's last illness he was not at any time under the influence of liquor. The relations between Mir. Coleman and his wife were perfectly friendly and the same that usually exist between husband and wife. During his death his mental condition was good. He had not seen him under the influence of liquor
 s aat nesn %r '0 asS Ssd spoken to him on the conduct of his business, of which the witness had charge. His mental ca pacity was good, he was reasonable and judi
 The witness was then examined at some length as to his opinion regarding Mr. Coleman 8 mental witness that he had stated that Mr. Coleman was not capable of doing business but it was only inc tse eo%rss ese the following exciting dialogue took place:
 Have you any interest in the willy" asked Mr.
 ssNo," said the witness.
 .Has Mrs. Coleman accused you of systematic charger asked Mir. Goodhart
 This question was objected to, but MT. Good. hart claimed it on the ground that he should show that the witness had repeatedly robbed the estate and there was evidence enough on tha books to prove the assertion.
 Judge York in support of the objection said that Mir. Goodhart was saying things that were not SO and whether the assertion originated from
 s Attorney % aoodhart Tf then i Claimed that the wit ness systematically robbed the estate and it was beccuse he was promised immunity from states The question was permitted, Attorney Good
 hart putting it in different form This is the
 "Isn't it true that it was in considera- tion of an agreement with Mrs. Coleman to save yourself from prosecution that you came to testify on the sustaining Of this willy --"Didn't you ever state to outsiders that MT. "Yes, I might have said so, when Mr. Coleman was drunk"
 The case is still on trial
 City Court - Criminal Side Judge Pickett.
 Thomas Rogers, John Tierney Michael Graham,
 breach of peace against Daniel Callahan, $5 fine, ne peace against Daniel Callahan, $lO fine. s5. .60 costs; Daniel Callahan breach of peace against
 Michael Michael Grahsm noiied; Thoma. Cullen and and Conlan, bond called; Frank Gallagher, breach of peace, judgment suspended; Frederick Ander- judgment suspended; Louis Kosper, theft, ,nolled Thomas Ford reform school complaint, contin ued to March 12 Henry Foley, theft, continued to March 12.
 Court of Common PIeas-Civil Side Judge Studley.
 In the case of Winnie Breen vs. the Metropoli tan Life Insurance company, which has been on | trial all week, tho jury rendered verdict yes
 terday of 1000 for the plaintiff. This case has been listened to by quite an audience during the whole trial, as the insured had quite circle of friends and acquaintances, and a good many present held industrial policies in the Metropoli l tan company. The claim made by the company ! was that Frank Murphy, the deceased, who wal
 insured in the company for the benefit of Mrs Winnie Breen, who was his aunt, had deceived
 the company by stating in his application for in
 surance that he Ina had never had serious illness l Haven hospital short time previous with drop sy, and that this illness was serious
 testimony was unfavorable to the company | It was also claimed that Murphy made untrue | answers as to his habits as to temperance. An interesting question was raised by tn, ! counsel for the company as to whether Winnie ! Breen, as she was only the aunt of Murphy, hat
 an insurable interest in Murphy's life. Th' l court charged the jury that the relationship wa
 not of itself sufficient, but that Mrs. Breen shoult | have some pecuniary interest in his life, as tha ! he must have been indebted to her, that sht must have been dependent on him for support Murphy resided with Mrs. Breen and had nt | father or mother, and she proved that he hae assisted her pecuniariiy.
 For plaintiff, E. F. Arsine and H. G. Newton | for defendant, Hugh Daley and O. s. Hamilton