Waterbury Democrat., 1901-03-08
MANY M|SMATED M0RTALS.
Presented Their Cases in Su-
 perior Court To-Day.


 Pitched Into Witness From New
 Iondon-He Was Here as Witness
 for Frank Loud In His Divorce Case Mycock Family Want Name Changed to Henry.
 X long trial list and a large short calendar confronted the members of the local bar at bar meeting in the superior court this forenoon. The public gallery was crowded with wom- en and a sprinkling of men, all peti- tioners for divorce or witnesses in such cases.
 Obadiah W. r. Randolph applied to be made co-plaintif in the suit of Thomas C.. Caldwell vs George H. Gloves. Mir Randolph alleged that he is administrator of the estate of the late Edward Randolph, MT Clowes's partner, and that AIr Cloves appropri- ated large sums of money to his per sonal use which belonged to the es ,, tate. The hearing on this matter was quite lengthy. The grounds upon which Mir Randolph claims are based | were published in the Democrat a few days ago. Decision was deferred. Alfred Bay vs Samuel Root ct al. motion to exDunge and be more ey- plicit. This is a sequel to the failure of the Connecticut Indemnity associa- tion. Plaintiff claims that the de fendant published to the world'' q | statement that the above-named asso- ! ciation was. solvent, and thereby in- 1 duced plaintiff to take out a policy. | whereas at that time the association | was anything but sound financially. | Defendant asked that the words pub | lished to the world be stricken out. Judge Bradstreet appeared for the de- fense and Attorney John O'Neill for the plaintiff Replying to Judge Brad street, Mir O'Neill said the associa ton had for months before it failed ''bulldoZed and ballyragged everybody who had death claims into accepting 10 cents on the dollar or get nothing at all.' He claimed his client paid 1 S2.0OO to the association six months l before it failed. Motion overruled
 Jeremiah 1T. Dunn of Naugatuck was admitted as co-defendant in the suit of the borough of Naugatuck vs i John M Mulville ct al.
 Herbert T. Dayton ct al vs Valentine ] Bohl ct al. motion for more specific 1 statement and an injunction to pre- 1 vent certain stockholders from yot- | ing as trustee on certain stock and | to turn over that stock, l6U shares, l to the company. This is q dispute be- tween minority aand majority stock holders in the corporation of Valentine Bohl & Go. Plaintiffs claim that MT BOhl at q certain special meeting | of the company. threatened to vote on the stock he holds as trustee. adverse | ly to the welfare Of the company. At torney Root appeared for defendant and Judge Bradstreet for plaintiffs The latter, explaining the matter to the court, said that on January Mir Bohl and John SachenhauseI' agreed to take the plaintiff and a Ar Spie1 into partnership. provided they would pay $20, ,0G0 each. Later it was agreed further to sell &4.C0G worth of stock to Michael Guilfoile, and soon after MT Bohl gave his note to the company for S11,Q00. Then came the annual meeting and preceding this it was that MT Bohl said he would vote on the stock lie held as trustee. It then de- veloped that Valentine Bohl X Co con- sisted of Mr Bohl and Nr Sachenhalls- CT, and they sold out to the Valentine Bohl company. consisting of the plain tins and defendant. MT Bohl thought he still held the stock as trustee and therein the difficulty enters. All the money was paid in. X more specific statement was ordered.
 Additional order of notice in the di- vorce suit of Frank E. Ludlow vs Laura F.. Ludlow was granted.
 Judge Brndstreet, representing Max kapernan, in a divorce suit from Sar- l lx~l the complaint to an order for annul- ment of marriage.
 The hearing of divorce cases fol lowed. The first was Robert H. Vel ton, a caster, vs Emma c. Welton Desertion was alleged The O'Neills presented the case. The parties were married in May, 'S7, in New Haven. Tn September. '97. Mrs lvelton de parted for New York. She left q note saying she was not coming back. Once before she left and he induced her to return. Her maiden name was Carey, but in the complaint it was Wright. She was divorced from Wright.
 The petition was granted.
 Lily G. Green vs George H. Green The plaintiff in this case was repre- scented by Attorney Peasley. She is quite young and has one child. She was married on September II, 1895, and in December. 1897 final separation took place. The petition was based on desertion and intolerable cruelty The honeymoon, was brief. Cruelty was frequent and separations many. Defendant lives in the Brooklyn dis trict Petition was granted, but pc titioner's maiden name, Nichols, was not restored to her.
 Anthony Slavinski vs Pallonia Sla- vinski: In this case improper rela- tions was alleged. It Is the sequel to case that stirred Naugatuck a year ago to great extent The defend ant lives in that town now. The parties separated last September. They were married five years. Attorney Russell appeared for the plaintiff. De fendant was not represented. Peti- ton was granted.
 The next was the suit of Mrs Ma