Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1894-06-22
DISTRICT COURT.
Decisions of Judge Bradstreet in a Nun
Der of Local Actions.


Decisions of Judge Bradstrees in Num-
Der of Local Actions.
Judge Bradstreet rendered the following
decisions in the district court this morn
ing.
In the case of John B. Mullings VS.
James O'Brien the plea in abatement was
sustained. the defendant to recover costs.
On February 8, 1894, the defendant pur-
chased suit of clothes and an overcoat
from the plaintiff, promising to pay for
them when delivered. Two days after
O'Brien made a voluntary assignment He
was sued for the value of the clothes ON
the ground that he knew he was unable to
pay for them and intended to make an as
Segment. The officer who made the SER
vice failed to make out the writ properly,
and hence the case fell fiat. Wood for
plaintiff Russell for defendant.
In the case of Jesse 81. Pierce VS.
Timothy j. Hanlon, decision was rendered
for the plaintiff to recover $20 and costs.
Pierce of Boston sold cash register and a
lot of cigars to Hanlon, with the agree
ment that when the cigars were paid for
the register would be Hanlon's. He sold
the cigars and also the machine and never
paid for them. His body was attached
and he is now under bonds. Pierce for
plaintiff and Lawlor for defendant.
In the case of Apgar & Co VS. w. FL.
Hoffman Judgment was rendered for the
return of property to the defendant and
81 damages and costs. This was a case
concerning several barrels of sugar. 1t
was an action based on fraud where the
plaintiff claimed the purchase was made
through Misrepresentation. Gillette for
plaintiffs; D. F. Webster for defendant.
The arguments in the case of Clifford
Bradley VS. Frank Barrows were finished
before the jury yesterday afternoon and
after a half hours deliberation they re-
ported a disagreement. They were sent
out again this morning and were out
nearly an hour when they again disagreed
and there being no probability of an agree
ment the case was dropped. Pierce for
plaintiff, Lowe for defendant.
The following cases which were to be
tried before the jury this term have gone
over to the September civil term of the
Art Ward, George Hosford VS. Burton A.
Peck, B. Seward VS. Thomas Fitzachery,
James 81. Morris VS. Michael Redding.
The last case to come. before the jury,
civil side, occupied the court to-day. It
was an interesting yet peculiar case. Fer
dinand Deming lived on Wilson street
with his wife and three children, In one
week he lost wife and children. He was
under several doctors care as his mind
was affected. OF course he ran into debt
under the circumstances. DR. Taft was one
of his creditors. When she left the city
Attorney Porter L. Wood took up her
claim. His persistent dunning of Dem
ing worked on the latters mind. Finally
the attorney sent letter to Randolph &
Cloves, Deming's employers,
relative to his indebtedness.
This was the last straw and Deming be-
came again almost insane. He with two
others went into Wood Office on the even
ing of February 3, 1898, and Deming as
saulted Wood. In the police court it was
brought out by Wood that his nose was
broken and almost all his internal organs
were disarranged by reason of the assault.
DR. Sarah E. Winslow testified to the nature
of Woods ailment. Deming was given
sixty days in Jail. An appeal was taken
and in the district court he was fined $50
and costs which was paid. Wood then
brought civil action, claiming SIS, 900 dam
ages This is the case tried to-day.
DIR Axtelle was called for the defense. AT
the request of Attorney S. w. Kellogg, who
appeared for Deming, he examined At
torney Woods nose, which Wood said
Deming broke. The doctor took the stand
and said the nose had never been broken.
He also said that he never heard of
so many organs of the body
out of order from such a shock. The
question as to Deming's sanity was OBJ
jected to by Attorney O'Neill, quoting for
his objection the Garfeld-Giteau case. 1t
was allowed. however. The doctor said
Deming was not really sane. In the main
he could tell the difference between right
and wrong. He was much better now
than one year ago. The deposition of DR.
Sarah E. Winslow was objected to, on the
ground that it was not filed with the court
within thirty days after it was taken. 1t
was taken May 10 and was not opened by
the clerk nor filed with him until
yesterday. Attorney Wood had it
all the time in his possession.
The deposition was allowed in under
objections. The case WAS not finished at