Morning journal and courier., 1893-12-12
Court Notes.

In the probate court yesterday Max Strouse was appointed trustee of the insol- vent estate of Moses Frank the State street jeweler.
 Julius Twiss, as executor on the estate of the late Charlotte Hotchkiss. has brought suit against William O. and Lottie R. Hall to recover balance alleged to be due. Property belonging to the defendants was attached to the amount of $600
 Property belonging to John Cronan sad located on Mansfield street was attached yesterday in B suit brought by George Irise to recover $1 800 damages for injuries re- csived by the defendent's dog biting the plaintiff
 Prosperity belonging to Edward G. Mad den and located on Congress avenue was attached yesterday in suit brought by W. H. Allen to recover debt of $200.
 Still Hangs Fire.
 THE BUNNELL & SCRANTON CASE.
 This case fingers along and now it goes back again to the committees, honce set tlement seems as far off as ever, and the cage has been hanging in the courts for about two and a half years.
 If the form of judgment submitted to Judge Prentice yesterday morning in the case of Paul c Skiff and others against E. G. Stoddard as trustee upon the insolvent estate of Bunnell & Scranton is passed by his honor, the special claimants or plain : tiffs in the action will receive the following amounts:
 James c. Kerrigan, $523 69; Dr. Robert Crane, $597.41; c. G. G. Merrill, $76S 66; Theodore s. Woolsey, $6.705 12; John T. Sloane, $552 98; the late Addison Smith, $3,312.s0; Dr. Paul O. Skif, $7,345 79; l $666.16; John B. Judson, S166 91; U. P. Coe, s131. AS; James E. Killam, $964. 63; | Charles N. Holcomb, $671 CA; J. 0. Rsum, | $36S 82; William H. Barnes, $63s GA; Jobn s. Bradley. $3, 223 8s; F. w. Tolles, S3, | 150.6S; E. J. Terrill, $1 ,00S 98; Augustus
 I. Bromun, $932.16; Adolph Sachs, s604;. | 75; Nicholas W. Hubinger, $3, ,299 24; Jo. seph B. Morse, $120 3S; Wilfred H. Kettle.
 ton, g. 773 39; Mary E. Scranton, $s1 52;
 John K. Beach, $367 S9; Thomas Hooker l $374, 69; W. F. Fsrren, $965 80 This form of judgment was drawn up with great care and was the result of At ! torney H. G. Newton's theory as to the | meaning of the supreme court decision. The special claimants or the plaintiffs in this suit all agreed to the above form of l judgment, and it was supposed that there
 would be no opposition to the passage of
 it. The trustee, through his lawyers, ob | jeoted to the form on two grounds He contends that the principle ueed in making the computation does not conform to the l decision of the supreme court and that i,
 is not mathematioslly correct. He also al. | leges that there Is nothing in the form of 1 judgment which was submitted to show what theory or principle the computation I had been based upon.
 Judge Stoddard, the trustees couneel, | asked Judge Prentice yesterday to have the whole matter go back sgaln to the commit tee, William L. Bsnnstt, who heard the
 case before.
 MT. Bristol said that he could cits spsci- ic cases where errors had been made, but | would not do so at that time. Attorney Newton renewed his offer, but no specific cases were mentioned. This matter was dropped temporarily l and arguments were begun upon an issue which arose in the claim of Thomas Hook CT. It Is alleged that Mir. Rockers claim ! Is different from some of tue others, and
 that 1t Is not covered by the supreme court l decision.
 Judge Prentice, after hearing the law yers, decided to refer the whole matter back to the committee, W. L. Bennett It will take months to get final judg- rnapf