Waterbury evening Democrat., 1895-02-11
DISTRICT COURT.

Decision Rendered by Judge Brad-
 street in Several Important Cases.
 Judge Bradstreet rendered four decisions in the district court this morning.
 John H. Fruin ct al vs Edward McGrath ct al was the first one. John H. Fruin, Michael King. Chris Garrity and wife. James Henebry and wife, Charles Hayes and wife all of Waterbury. John Burns and wife of Braidwood. Ill, and Henry King of Chicago are the plaintiffs. The defendants are Edward Me- Grath and wife. Alice Fruin. aud Michael Gullfoile. The allegations are that all are in possession as tenants in common of the property on South Main street, north corner of Scovih street. The plaintiffs and Mrs Edward McGrath are owners in fee of one-third. Edward Mo. Grath another one third and Michael Guilfoils the third portion. The land and buildings are subject to n dover interest in favor of Alice Fruin. The property was mortgaged by Edward McGrath, Michael Guilfoile and Robert Fruin to the Newtown savings bank for $12,000. Ed ward McGrath has been collecting the rents averaging S200 month. He has been making repairs without plaintiffs consent and they ask for a receiver and an accounting The defendants answer was that when Robert Fruln died. he and Ed ward McGrath owned copjointly land and buildings on West Main street. On March f, 1894, all the heirs entered into an agreement to pay the widow $55 a month during life in lieu of dover. Ed | ward McGrath and John H. Fruin were given power of attorney and furnished a | The plaintiffs demurred to this defense on l fha hat ha hat n Robert Fruin has a dover interest in said land or some of it, and the further fact | that Edward McGrath and John H. Fruin have power of attorney. to make | repairs and collect rents and pay over to | the widow certain money in lieu of dover, 1 and that they have given bond for the | faithful performance of their ies, con | stitute no reasons why the property iu question, which belongs to the partIes to thls action as tenants in common. should not be aPparted among them. The de. murIer was sustained
 John R Bissell vs Maurice F. Carmody The defendant was sued for $2,000 ant the case returnable the first Tuesday 1T September, 1894. The allegations wer, that Dr Bissell of Mahanoy City, Penn on April Is. 1894. owned drug store a 734 East Main street On that dat Sheriff Carmody broke into and took pos session of the store. by virtue of attach ment. The detendant's answer was tha he had a right as deputy sheriff to enter that subsequently he delivered back tn goods by order of the probate court t Robert E. Hall. agent for the plaintiff
 The plaintiff entered demurrer that n
 facts were shown that the probate cour
 had jurisdiction or that the plaintiff re
 sided in this probate district. It was nc
 alleged that the plaintiff was insolvent c
 that the goods were returned to Rnyon
 authorized by the plaintiff. The dc murrer was sustained.
 James DeCarlo vs N. Y., N. H. & H. Il
 R. Go. On March ?. 1894, Anthony DeCarl
 WAS struck by train at the Maple streC Il crossing in Naugatuck. and died from tn = injuries next day, James DeCarlo wa g appointed administrator and brought SUI , against the railroad Judgment was give
 for the plaintiff to recover S1 and costs.
 Maggie Wilson ct al vs the Borough (
 Naugatuck. On November 3 1893. Magg
 Wilson, aged years. fell through a tra door on the sidewalk in front of Georl
 ". Andrews store in Naugatuck and WI
 badly injured Suit was brought fC
 Sl .UOO damages Judgment was rendrre
 for the plaintiff for Sl and costs.
 The case of ThomIs Elliot vs Martl D Grove is being tried before Judge Bra,
 street in the district court to-day. It is
 suit for labor auk materials furnished
 the building of a house in Naugatuck, tl
 sum of S2l2.59 beIng involved. DeciSio
 reserved