Waterbury Democrat., 1901-03-22
COURT BUSINESS LIVELY.
taxation of Costs in Town
 Trolley Co Case.

| kiss, McAlleny and Burritt Cases Discussed-Two Divorces Granted ! Just to Keep the Mill in Good Run-
 ming Order.
 At short calendar in the superior
 court to-day Judge Thayer presided.
 The business transacted was light,
 only few motions being heard. As | slShlientS Tor next week were made
 as follows: Tuesday, George H.
 Gloves vs Randolph x Cloves Co.
 (speciaD: s. r. Williams ys Obadiah | W. r. Randolph, ct al Ann J. Partree
 vs Theodore Atwood, ct al. Wednes-
 day: John W. Gafrney, ct al, vs
 Thomas McCabe:. the Shoe Hardware ! company vs John McLinden; Charles l C. Brown vs Dennis E. Carroll ct al, | T. +. CarmOdy. trustee yS Watson M 1 Hurlburt; A. M. Burrtt, eXecutor, ct
 al, vs Angelo C. Burritt. ct al, motion | that plaintiff be required to cite in
 Clara M. Burritt, wife Of defendant. 1 as co-defendant. This motion was to
 show what right if any, Mrs Burritt
 has to certain property. Defendant,
 as trustee for his wife, loaned to his
 father, who conducted the old Burritt
 foundry in Brooklyn, $7o:OOO of her 1 funds, his father being embarrassed. i Subsequently he deeded his interest in l his fathers property to Attorney 1 Marsh with the understanding that
 Mr Marsh should convey it to Mrs
 Rurritt. This arrangement was car
 Tied out. Plaintiff had previously en-
 tered suit against A. C. Burritt to re- cover for certain bonds which the | plaintiff had to pay for defendant fail
 ing to keep an agreement which plain tiff claims was made with him. He l claims that the transfer of the prop 1 erty to Attorney Marsh was fraudu- lent. The court took the papers for consideration.
 Hearing on q motion for disclosure | of defense, judgment and law day.
 brought by the Dime Savings bank vs 1 William H. Wright was postponed. | There was d long hearing on the | taxation of costs in the suit of the | town of Waterbury against the trolley l company. The costs were taxed at
 $256 odd. Attorney Bronson, counsel | for the defendant. held the amount was eXhorbitant by at least S1OO. The court said MT Bronson ought to have the testimony of the officer who sum- l moned the plaintiff to support his | claims. If the officer charged for | miles he did not travel or if unneces- | Sary expenses were undergone in sum- l mOning witnesses or false items
 charged evidence should be produced l to prove it. The discussion was wax ing warm when the judge said he
 would continue the tearing. He | thought counsel ought to settle the | matter between themselves.
 The old contention between the | Dime Savings bank and the Rev Paul | r. McAlleny of Meriden was revived | on q motion to strike out and be more | specific in the substituted complaint.
 Attorney Bronson represented the de-
 fendant and the plaintiff was repre-
 Sented by Attorney Cole. The con l tention is over a parcel of real estate l which defendant became possessed of | through the will of one Joseph Gas
 sidy. The latter raised money on a 1 lot he thought he owned and to which | the town clerk of Meriden gave him
 q certificate of title. It developed af-
 ter Cassidy's death that he had only
 life interest in the property. Now
 the bank is seeking to recover the
 money. $1,SOO, it loaned on the lot. l Decision was deferred.
 Sarah F. Hotchkiss'Sl appeal from
 probate came up next in the form of
 q motion for the appointment of a l censervator The probate court ad- l judged Caroline s. ScOvilI. sister of
 Mrs Hotchkiss. capable of -transacting | her affairs, thereby denying Mrs l Hotchkiss's petition. which alleged in 1 tirmity and incapability owing to old | age. Mrs Scoyill was not represented. | Mrs HOtchkiSS testified to relatives in. | ducing Mrs Scovill to sign papers. af- | ter perSUading her to live with them. | In the papers she surrendered all claim
 to her husbands property. Afterward l she said she did not know the nature
 of the papers. A year ago she deeded | to her SoE-in-law. Frank Davis, q lot.
 worth S1,OO0, and moved her own | hn, to, ,s1 f0, tr 1,,,i11 T
 Later she gave him $500 to help build l the house. Suit was entered against l the SOn-in-law for the recovery of the lot and the money. The suit was com l promised by the sOn-in-law paying
 back $70O. The parties to this matter
 live on North Main street, near City | Mills. Mrs ScovilTs property consists
 of real estate taxed for 5000. and $500 1 in bank. Wales Porter and Deputy
 Sheriff Rigney, both neighbors. testi-
 fled that a conservator was necessary.
 Attorney John O'Neill explained mat
 ters favorable to Mrs Scovill.
 ] He concluded by saying that while | she might be influenced the proba-
 bility was that she could not be. De i cision was deferred
 l Etta A. Thayer. petitioner for divorce l from Henry A. Thayer was next taken up. This was a separate case. Plain
 tiff was represented by Judge Brad street. She lives in Thomaston. The
 allegation was improper conduct.
 The parties were married in Brewster
 September 3. 1898. Defendant is at present in New Haven county jail 1 for theft of S11O from his people in | Seymour. He has been there q year. 1 Plaintiff was formerly Mrs Libbey. The morning after his marriage to plaintiff defendant disappeared and
 was absent three days. The petition
 was granted and plaintiff restored to
 her formed name. Libbey. -z.-l.e-
 The continued divorce case of Sam
 uel Lavine against Sarah Lavine. now | Koperman, was resumed. At the last
 hearing the court deemed the evidence l insufficient to prove the allegations, improper relations with other men.
 Michael Fannick of Union City. and l Max Koperman. who is seeking the
 annullment of his union with her on
 the grounds that she was the wife of
 Lavine when he married her furnish
 ed the lacking evidence and the peti-
 ton was granted Judge CoweH ap- peared for the plaintiff.
 I The divorce cases of Mary R. Stock