Worcester morning daily spy., 1898-01-11

1715-Henry, Jr., VS.. Daley. S. B. Taft;
Brody
2l72-District attorney ex. rel, VS..
Swift ct al Gould; Haggerty & Kane
2216-Taylor VS.. Bacon and trs. Hub
bard; Redding.
2224-Conant VS.. Laurel Hill Grocery
Union. Gates; Taylor.
S3S-Robertson VS.. Hall ct al. T. II.
Sullivan; Haskell. -o
2400--Draper VS.. Draper ct al. Kent
& Dewey; Williams & Williams.
21S6-Aseny VS.. Craig ct al. Potter,
Curtis; Blackmer & Vaughan.
All divorce ibels are in order for
Wednesday. ~ t
PETITION IN INSOLVENCY. s.-
Aaron Jackson of Worcester filed a
voluntary petition in the court of in
solvency Monday. the schedules of as
sets and liabilities being placed ON rec
ord later. The hearing on the writ
Issued is returnable Jan. 21. Dodge &
Taft appear for the petitioner.
INSOLVENCY DOCKET.
The insolvency docket for today is as
follows:
1474-Fred N. Smith. Atlhol. Fourth
meeting.
1644-Edwin P, Henderson, Worcester.
Adjourned third meeting.
169S-Jane G. Warren, Worcester Sec
ond meeting.
1699-Francis W. Grout, Worcester.
Second meeting
17OO--william H White, Barre. Sec
ond meeting.
17O2-Michael j. Griffin, Worcester.
Second meeting.
q
Worcester Second meeting.
1709-Adjustable Saw Company, Fitch
burg. Adjourned first meeting.
1701-Dsvid A. Wilder Leorlinster.
First meeting.
1712-Nathan H. Chandler Worcester.
First meeting and composition hearing.
16SS-D. M. Thurston, Worcester. Ex-
animation.
ATTACHMENTS.
Austin A. Wheelock VS.. Alfred o,
Barrow, Mendon, $500, third district
court of southern Worcester; writ
served by Nugent.
Frank S. Robbins VS.. Patrick ]. Muir
ply, Worcester, $4,000, superior court
writ served by Scott. Wood & Wood
for plaintiff.
served by Hunt, j. ]. Jandron for
plaintiff.
PROBATE COURT.
In the probate court Monday a hear
ing was held on the allowance of the ac-
count of Charles A. Denny Of Leicester,
administrator of the estate of A. M
Brown of that town.
HANSCOM VS.. SAWYER.
In the superior civil court, Monday,
the cases of William Edward Hanscom
vs. William H. Sawyer occupied the en-
tire day, and will be resumed this
morning, the action being to recover for
alleged injury to business. William A.
/ Gle for plaintiff; Blackmer & Vaughan,
Frank P. Goulding for defendant.
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASES.
The cases in order for today are as
follows:
277rLoring VS.. Holden. Potter
Thayer & Cobb.
1S-Monlogmolss VS.. Lathrop ct al.
Milton, H. Parker; Goulding, Mellish.
14S0-Howry VS.. Harris. Harris, G. w.
Thayer; Dodge & Taft.
1735-Thompson VS.. Frost. Woodward
Glasgow, Goulding.
2251-Tebo vs. B. & A. R. R. Co.
Thayer & Cobb; S. Hoar, Goulding.
2437-Cowee VS.. Damon Ratigan; Sui
livan & OfConnell.
24S1-Duggan VS.. N. E. R. r. Com
pany. H. Parker; Goulding, Mellish.
SUPREME COURT RESCRIPTS.
Five rescripts have been handed .dowr
by the supreme judicial court in cases
heard at the october sitting of the full
bench. Among the cases which attract
ed more than usual public attention, was
that Of Samuel Goldberg vs.. Max Feiga
| The court overrules the exceptions
holding that no error appears withir
exceptions" The case was an action tC
recover money paid on an election bet
Plaintiff and one Nathan Marcus
1 made bet with defendant, GodinslI, il
| October, 1896, that Bryan would be elec
! ted president Godinski bet on Nc
Kinley and gave odds of 5000 to $50. The
] money was deposited with Feiga, wh(
gave it to Godinski when the result O.
I the election was known. The only ques
| tion in the case was whether the stat
| ute of 1895. chap. 419, sec. II, gave plain
| tiff the right to recover back his money
The court holds that this statute doe:
] llol Apply " d mere SldhGIOiueE viz
| pays over the money ir accordance witt
the terms upon which it was received
| by him.
After the election the plaintiff de
manded his money back from Feiga, tht
stakeholder, but it was refused. Feigs
claimed that he paid the money ovel
after the election TO Godinski, according
to the terms of the bet. The court ruleC
that the case did not come under chap
ter 419 Of the acts Of 1895, and foun(
for the defendant. Webster Thayer
Hollis w. Cobb for plaintiff; RockwooC
Hoar for defendant
In the case of John Gardner VS.. tn,
New England Telephone & Telegraph
Company, the plaintiffs exceptions ar,
CONTINUED on Eighth Page.1