Waterbury Democrat., 1900-12-03
WATERBURY MONDAY DECEMBER 8 1900
MORE TO FOLLOW.
Decision in Parsons Case Will Bring
 on Other Suit

on Other Suit
 Late Saturday afternoon the jury in the case of the Barlow Bros company against Mrs Eliza I. Parsons for SS,0O0 deposits alleged to have been placed III the defendants bank when it was closed by order of the superior court on November 5, 1898, gave what is known among lawyers as a divided verdict. The case was brought on two counts, first. that Mrs Parsons was q partner of her husband in the banking affairs Of G. S. Parsons & Co.,, and second, that she conducted the bank after the death of her husband. which occurred on October II. 1898. on her own re- sponsihility. The jury's verdict said that Mrs Parsons was not a partner of her husband in his business affairs but that she conducted the bank on her own responsibility after her husbands death and until the bank went into the hands of receivers. The verdict was for S5,000 odd. On this ground. therefore Mrs Parsons is not held re- sponsible on the most important issue involved in the case. that iS she was not in partnership with her husband: but she is responsible for all the money that was deposited in the bank after her husbands death.
 Notice of appeal to the supreme court has been given by tEe counsel engaged on both sides of the case, the defendant on the second count and the plaintiff on the first count, but it is pos sible that this notice may be with drawn and suit instituted afresh against Mrs Parsons on different grounds. There is also some talk of l individual depOsitorS bringing Sult against Mrs Parsons. but this is hard 1 ly likely to occur as the case just de- cided was test ease and one of the counsel for the Barlow Bros company being confident that another suit brought upon entirely different grounds l from the last one will result in making | her respOnsible for the affairs of the bank from July 2 1896. the day upon which she gave her husband permiS- sion to use her name in the transac- tion of his affairs.
 The law is very singular upon the business relations between husband and wife in this state. A Wife may Ee part owner of q business transact ed by her husband and yet not be his business partner. and upon this point | it is held the supreme court has neNe' decided in this state. Law in plenty was quoted in the case just decided. and eleven states decided in favor CT inc contention of the plaintiff in the
 Barlow case and ten against it. MT O'Neill held that the law in thls state upon this point is more advanced than it is in any other state. The rulings l of the court during the first day or the trial SC discouraged the counsel for me plaintiff that one of them said III the evening that they might as well drop the case at that point and go to the supreme court with it. They came near being non-suited. And upon the | first count the rulings were pfeclselH tha same all through the case. 4he couf.t did not view the situation through the eyes of counsel for tEe plaintiff.
 To-day Messrs ONeill and Burpee.
 counsel for the Barlow Bros company. will hold q consultation and decide up on what grounds they will institute the proposed suit.
 The defense will appear before the superior court on December i' III Bridgeport to argue a motion TOT the
 arrest of judgment on the grounds that the verdict on the second count was
 against the evidence. This is merely
 q technical proceeding. the first step
 towards bringing the matter before the
 supreme court which cOnveneS Tn fen-
 ruary. The decision of that court Will not be given until probably next sum mer. Ii is understood that half q dozen or more cases of individual de-
 Dositors are in course of preparation. some by Judge Root and some by Ter 1 ry X Bronson.