The daily morning journal and courier., 1900-01-06
JUDGE RORABACK SUSTAINED.


 Judgment in the Oriental Insurance
 Company Case is Upheld-New Point
 in a Divorce Case.
 The supreme court sitting for the first district at Hartford finished its work for the term Thursday afternoon and adjourned. A case argued Thurs day was the suit of Leila A. Tirrell, a m1lliner, against Louis R. Tirrell of Hartford. Mrs. Tirrell recently brought a suit for divorce against her husband on the ground of desertion. The evil dence showed that for six months after the desertion the defendant supported his wife under an order of the superior court. The date of the desertion was prior to this support and Judge Rora- back, before whom the case was tried, decided that inasmuch as the defend- ant contributed to the support of his wife after the date of the desertion al- legged in the writ, there had not been a wilful abandonment on the part of the defendant, and that the three years assertion, to constitute ground for di- vorce, had not expired. He denied the application. The plaintiff claimed that the abandonment commenced before the defendant supported his wife un- der the order of the court, and took an appeal. The case was uncontested in the superior court and there was no appearance for the defendant in the supreme court.
 Before adjoining the court handed down three decisions in cases heard at the October term of the court, thus cleaning up all cases heard at that term. The docket is cleared of all cases except those heard by the court this week.
 In the suit of Porter Brothers and others against the Orient Insurance company of Hartford, no error is found. Opinion by Judge Torrance, all concur ring. This was an action to recover $5,OO0 the amount of a loss under a policy of fire insurance issued by the defendant company which was brought to the district court of Waterbury, and thence by the defendants appeal to the superior court in New Haven coun-@ ty. The facts were found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff to recover $1,- 44S.22. The defendant appealed for al- legged errors in the rulings and findings of the court. w. w. Hyde and A. l.. Shipman for the appellant, the defend ant. and Henry Stoddard and Lucien F. Burpee for the appellees, plaintiffs.
 F. Romeo vs. Giuseppe Martucci, err TOT; was New Haven case Judg- ment of the court of common pleas is reversed and cause remanded for fur ther proceedings in accordance with law. Opinions by Judge Hamersley, Chief Justice Andrews and Judge Hall dissenting. This was an action of re- plevin to recover groceries, brought to the court of common pleas in New Ha- ven and tried before Judge Bishop The facts were found and judgment was l rendered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed. R. H. Tyner for the appellant, the plaintiff; J. D. OConnor for the appellee, the defend- ant Pratt Brothers & Co. vs. the city of Waterbury, No error. Opinion by Judge Hamersley, all concurring. This was suit brought to restrain the city of Waterbury from polluting with it's sewage the Naugatuck river above the | mill privilege owned by the plaintiff. and also for damages. It was brought | to the superior court in New Haven county. where demurrer to certain de- lenses of the answer was sustained by | Judge Wheeler and the cause was after wards tried before Judge yShumway. The facts were found and Judgment | was rendered for the plaintiff for $500 | damages and also for an injunction The defendant appealed. The case has been in court nearly eight years, hav- ing been brought to the superior court 1t New Haven at the May term, 1891.