The daily morning journal and courier., 1896-12-18
YESTERDAY IN THE COURTS
BILDWIN'S DEMURRER TO HUGO'S quo W1RR1NTO TRIT OTERRULED

By Judge Shumway in Superior Court Yesterday-Amon BradIey's Claim of $1,OO0 Against Peck Brothers Co. Dis alIowed-Goodrich Divorce Suit-Other Court Cases.
 Judge Shumway yesterday morning in the superior court overruled the de- murrer to the writ of quo warranto citing in court Robert E. Baldwin to show cause why he held the office of first selectman from Philip Hugo. The demurrer stated that the proper pro- ceeding had not been taken to bring the matter before the court.
 An answer will now be filed by Mir. Baldwin. When the Issue is reached, it is said by MT. BaldWin's friends, that trial by jury will be demanded, Whether this was true or not could not be established, as Baldwin's coun- sel declined to discuss the question. The decision yesterday morning sus- tains the mode of procedure taken by MT Hugo through his counsel, and makes it necessary for MT. Baldwin to submit his case to the court in this manner of appeal to the supreme court. As MT. Baldwin's counsel give notice that they will not take the case to a higher tribunal on the question raised in the demurrer the issue will have to be established by pleadings on the quo warSanto.
 It is probable that the answer of MT. Baldwin will be that MT. Hugo while he had the largest number of votes in the count as recorded, the count in the Seventh ward was not properly made and therefore the total vote as recorded was incorrect.
 Whether, when the issue is estab- lished, it can be submitted to jury for a decision will probably be another question which the court will have to decide. Quo WarrantO proceedings have usually been tried before the judge and the question will probably be one of common law, as good lawyers assert that the statutes of the state do not so provide,
 GOODRICH DIVORCE SUIT.
 Mrs. Adeline J. Goodrich brought suit against her husband, eX-Selectman John l. Goodrich, for a decree of di- Vorce.
 The trouble which brought the pres ent circumstances to pass occurred about week ago, so it is said, and at that time Mrs. Goodrich left her home on Crown street and has gone else where to reside. She is in this city, however.
 The allegations upon which the ap- plication for a divorce is based are two, namely, habitual intemperance and intolerabe cruelty.
 The firm of Harrison & Zacher ap- pear for Mrs Goodrich In this case. In addition to the decree Mrs. Goodrich asks for alimony but makes no ale gation regarding the value of her hus- bands estate.
 As the children are all over twenty one, she does not ask for their GUS tody and neither does she ask for a change of name. This last is not GUS tomary where there are children as the courts will seldom grant such an application.
 Mir Goodrich is a prominent, well known man in this city, and for some years conducted a brokerage business in New York. He served two years on the board of selectmen and was chairman of it for some time. He was also formerly a coal merchant on Church street. Mrs. Goodrich is a daughter of the late Massena Clark. Upon his demise considerable portion of the property pasesd into the hands of his daughter, Mrs. Goodrich
 They were married thirty years ago, in 1866, and have lived together all of these years, and have brought up three children All are now of age and one of them is in New York city in bus- ness.
 The case is returnable to the superior court at the January term and it will probably be contested by MT. Goodrich. It appears that, despite the fact that Mir. Goodrich has become financially embarrassed, and that some of his wife's property has been involved thereby his wife contrary to some statements that have appeared, has yet remaining a considerable part of her private fortune-enough to continue her in easy circumstances financially. Still, her fortune is materially dimin- ished. Reports have it that MT. Good rich was not successful in his broker age business affairs in New York and that number of mortgages have been placed upon his real estate; and 1t is said that several judgments have been obtained against his property. While in New York in business, in recent years, he was concerned in dealing in lumber as well as in brokerage mat ters but he has not been at his New York place of business for over a year and 1t is presumed that that branch of his business has been given up. While in the brokerage business he was given many business hints by former New Havener, MT. Edward Rowe, who was connected with the exchange, and 1t is said that his business there met with various ups and downs. A judgment was obtained against him by a New York creditor, and the matter came be- fore Judge Cleaveland in this city, who postponed it until December 2S
 BRADLEY'S CLAIM DISALLOWED
 Judge ShumWay, in the superior court yesterday, disallowed the claim of Anon Bradley for S4,000 against the Peck Brothers company Bradley claimed that he had never intended tC purchase the stock; that it was taken as collateral for money loaned the firm The defence set up the claim that the plaintiff had known all the time that