The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-03-08
VERDICT AGAINST PRATT.
EAYES COSTUME COMPANY AWARD
 ED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES.

Short Calendar Session Will Afford Much
 Business for Judge WheeIer-Twelve Ex- Parte Divorce Cases on the List-Othel
 Interesting Court News.
 In the superior court at exactly 5:4S o'clock last evening the jury, which for several days past has been trying the suit of the Eaves Costume company of New York against Thomas H. Pratt of Clinton to recover $3,500 alleged to be due for costumes furnished Pratt's Robbers of the Rhine" opera company, returned with verdict for the plaintiff to recover $464.2S and costs. The case has been on trial for several days, and was given to the jury yesterday after noon at 9:30 o'clock Attorney J. Birney Futile represented the Costume com pany and ex-Mayor York and Attorney Wolfe the defendant.
 BUSY TIMES FOR TO-DAY.
 The short calendar docket to-day is an unusually lengthy one and Judge Ralph Wheeler will be kept busy from the time the court comes in at 10 o'clock ulllll III ddulNlOlh lO bllC regular civil business there are twelve ex-parte divorce cases on the list, the majority of which are New Haven par ties. This is probably the longest di- vorce list with which Judge Wheeler has yet been confronted.
 THE DIvORCES.
 Among the New Haven divorce cases are Van Dine vs. Van Dine, Tanner vs. Tanner, Siebert vs. slebert, Wolfe vs. Wolfe, Kinney ys. Kinney, Lilley vs. Lilley, Downs vs. Downs, Hall vs. Hall and Holt vs. Holt. The other divorce cases are Ashborn vs. Ashborn, a Mer- iden case; Bailey vs. Bailey and sam son vs. Samson, both Waterbury cases.
 THE CIVIL DOCKET.
 The regular docket Is as follows: Stiles vs. Maio ct als., motion for judgment of foreclosures; Crooks & Go. Ys. Buck halter & Co, motion for disclosure by. the garnishees; Morrissey vs Morris. sey, motion to expunge portions of the. bill of specifications; Foote's appeal from commissioners, motion for order affirming the original decision of the commissioners; Mansfield vs. Mans field, motion for judgment; Miles Trust estate vs. Strong, ct als., motion for leave to file second and third replies. to the substituted first defense, also motion for judgment; Lane ct al. vs. Hayes ct als., motion for judg- ment of foreclosure; Mccormick ct al. appeal from probate for leave to file req sons of appeal.
 Horne ys. Williams ct al, motion that the answer be stricken out; Ward vs. the Metropolitan Life Insurance com pany of New York, motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial; Belden, trustee, vs. Sedgwick, trustee, ct als., motion for order to cite in creditors, etc, and that parties defendant answer and interplead; Kingsbury ct al. vs. motion for default for fail- ure to file answer; St. Johns parish of vs. Waterbury, motion for default for failure to file answer; Kel- sey vs. Dowdell, motion for judgment of 
 Beers ct ux. vs. the Boston and All bany Railroad company ct al, demur- Ter; Turcotte vs. Turcotte, motion to strike out portion of the specifications; application of Luke w. Higgins for change of name; Swayne vs. New Ha- ven, demurrer; Whites appeal from probate, motion in each case that req sons of appeal be filed; Hogben vs. the Life Insurance company, motion to strike out portion of the an- swer; Thatcher & Co., vs. Waterbury, motion for default for failure to file Bey of a motion for leave to file demurrer, also motion for judgment for failure to file answer to reasons of appeal; Kimmel vs Benner & Opdyke ct als. motion for default for failure to file answer.