Waterbury Democrat., 1900-12-19
SOME COURT DECISIONS.
Mflk Ordinance Receives a Rap-wil
son City Case Decision.

 Hardware company on Brown street against John McLinden was overruled. The defendant claimed that the plain tiff had no right to enter suit, on the grounds that in his complaint he did not state that he was in actual pos session of certain land on Brown street, the property ill dispute. De fendant's demurrer is also overruled ill the suit of \. II. Tyrrell, trustee, against the Standard Soap and Tea company. The demurrer was to the effect that the plaintiff could not enter suit for the recovery of the good will of q trading common concern and the court decided otherwise.
 Judge Cowell and jury were en- gagged this afternoon hearing the rather 1aughable case of Benjamin Payeur vs pr A. Victor Kelly for S2O0 for the loss of an Irish setter and a litter of nine pups. Pierce and Root appeared for the plaintiff and Carmody for the defense. The dog had many masters before it finally got into .Dr Kelly's lands. It originally belonged to Mir Rawley of Brooklyn, who gave it to Mrs Margaret Monahan of Watertown. and she testified that she traded it with her friend. James Burke. who tended bar in a saloon on the corner of East Main and Orange streets. for q grey hound. She considered the setter worth S2JO and the greyhound about S1OO. Burke gave the dog to the plaintiff. who alleges that the defend ant unIawfully took it and the pups examined by Mr Carmodv there was considerable laughter. Why do you smile so:' he asked her. "Because you are smiling at me- and the whole court shook with laughter. The dog was the best in WatertOWn and could lick any dog except the one owned by the pastor of the Episcopal church.
 The suit of Sarah Clark. d milliner employed at 134 Bank street. against Michael Hughes of Bridgeport for $l.- 900 for services rendered. was adjust ed without trial this forenoon ill the district court. the plaintiff receiving $7O0. Guilf0ie and ONcill appeared for the plaintiff and Root and keating for the defense. Plaintiff admitted having received SIOO before in part payment Of her claim.
 The supreme court. which sat in New Haven yesterday, handed down wenty-two decisions, many of them from New Haven county. There were four that are interesting to Waterbury and one of them involves Il great many suits which were ready to be tried as soon aS the court would decide the test ease which was brought. This Was Ihr case of the D. B. Wilson Co vs the city of Waterbury. Many mer- chants on East Main street and south Main street some years ago had much merchandise destroyed by the over flowing of Little brook. The suit of D. E. Wilson was to test the responsi- bility of the city as to the paying of damages. II has taken q long time for q final decision to be rendered, but the city is thr winner and the mer- chants will have 10 shoulder their own losses. The following are the decis- ions as rendered which interest Water bury:
 David E. Wilson vs the city of Wa tCrbury Judgment advised for the de fendant; opinion by Judge Torrance, all concur. Action to recover damages for injury 10 riparian premises claimed to have been caused in the construction of the city'S sewer syS- tenn. Tried in the district court of Waterbury and by defendants appeal to the superior court before Judge Ralph Wheeler. There reserved for the supreme court.
 William Brennan Vs the Berlin Iron Bridge Co. Judgment advised for plaintiff; opinion by Judge Hall, all concur. Action to set aside a judg- ment for the plaintiff for nominal damages only, and for new trial. Re served by Judge Robinson in the su- perior court upon demurrer to the complaint. for the advice of the su- preme court.
 Charles N. Morgan vs the Randolph X Gloves Co of Waterbury. No error; opinion by Judge Torrance. all concur. Action to recover for services as an attorney. Tried in court of common pleas for New Haven before Judge Hubbard, with judgment for the de fendant. The plaintiff appealed.
 State of Connecticut vs Fred A. Tyr rell. No error; opinion by Chief Jus tices Andrews: all concur. Information for the violation of city ordinance concerning the sale of milk. brought to the city court of Waterbury and thence by the defendants appeal tC the district court of Waterbury. where it was tried before Judge Cowell upon defendants demurrer to the informa ton. which was sustained and the de- fendant was discharged. The state ap pealed.
 The disDositon of the case of the state vS r. \. Tvrrell knocks out the milk ordinance. Judge Bradstreet rep resented the defense in this matter It will he recalled that when q mum Der of milk dealerS refused to take Ou milk licenses. they were arrested charged with violation of city ordi nance A test case was made of tho case against John F. Gallagher. Judgt | COwe1 sustained Judge Bradstreet's | demurrer in tue district court and tho | case went to the supreme court on tho | states appeal, prepared by Attorney | Bronson. prosecutor in the dstric court The supreme court sustained | Judge Bradstreet. but failed to pas.
 upon the vital point in the case as t' | whether or not the milk ordinance wa
 valid. This necessitated going ove l the whole business again with Tyrrel
 as the rebellious miIkman this time l The supreme court has found there wa
 no error: that is. the milk ordinance i l r-,l;