The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-02-13
IN AND ABOUT THE COURTS
SESSION or THE SUPREME COURI
 HERE YESTERD4Y.
Many Decisions Handed Down-.Trow~ bridge Appeal for Friday-BOy Thieves Bound Over-Judgment Tor BulI- Cases in the City Court.

bridge Appeai for Friday-Boy Thieves
 Bound Over-Judgment Tor Bull
 Cases in the City Court.
 The justices of the supreme court of errors held a conference in this city yes terday morning and handed down the annexed decisions.
 The most important decision was that in the tax appeal taken by Edwin Toof against the city of New Haven, in which the decision of Judge Robinson, adverse td the city, was upheld The decisions follow:
 Edwin J. Toof vs City of New Ha- ven. No error. Opinion by Judge Hamersley.
 Edwin J. Toof vs the city of New Haven is the defendants appeal from Judge Robinson's decision in the supe- rior court, deducing Toof's assessment in his appeal from the decision of the board of relief the only decision of i'm portance in these cases which has thus far been against the city. The proper ty in question, situated in Orange and George streets and Winthrop avenue, was in round numbers assessed by the board of assessors at $74,O43 This was appealed from them to the board of re- lief, and that body reduced the assess ment to $56,15O. Even this reduction did not please Toof, and he appealed to the superior court. The case was conclu- ded and Judge Robinson announced his decision reducing the assessment to 29,- 400.
 Carl Lewis Stein vs. John Coleman. Error. Judgment set aside; new trial granted. Opinion by Andrews, c. J.
 Carl Louis Stein vs. John Coleman defendants appeal. A suit for $2,500 damages to plaintiffs s property on State street in consequence of the wash of water from the defendants roof. In the trial of this case a jury gqave ten dol lars damages for the plaintiff from which judgment the defendant took an appeal Thirty-one reasons for appeal ing are given.
 The Soper Lumber company of Worcester, Mass, vs. Halstead & Har- mount company, of this city. Plain tiff's appeal. Plaintiff sought to recover for $75O worth of lumber which the de- fendant company got from the F. H. Russell company which subsequently went out of business. Plaintiff claims that Russell owed them for the lumber. "A jury found for the defendant to re- cover one dollar and costs.
 Sarah J. Lewis vs. John B. Healy. No error. Opinion by Andrew, c. J.
 Sarah J. Lewis vs. John Healey, de- fendant's appeal from Judge Studley's finding in the common pleas court of July 17, 1900. A suit for $700 from An sonia dating from October 23, 1897, in which the jury found for plaintiff to re- cover $296.66. This court subsequently set aside this verdict at request of de- fendant and plaintiff then appealed to the supreme court of errors, from this decision. The latter court set aside this latest decision and re-established said verdict. The common pleas court then found its original judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Plain tiff is in the trucking business at No 35 Olive street and in 1897 the defendant called upon her manager and got con tract for carting brick, owned by said defendant to Harry W. Asher on Court street.
 The finding states that plaintiff agreed to price of seventy-f1ve cents per thousand for the carrying of the brick. There Is dispute over the con- tract.
 Mary E. Beach vs. Charles E. Whit tlesey. No error Opinion by Baldwin.
 Mary B. Beach vs. Charles B. Whit tlesey both of Orange. Plaintiffs ap- peal from common pleas court. on June 12, 1899, it is claimed the defend- ant wrongfully entered on plaintiff's s land. on Prospect street, West Haven, and still keeps possession of the same. The common pleas court, in the trial that followed, adjudged that the de- fendant recovered his costs. Five hun dred dollars damages was claimed. Defendant claimed that in 1894 Dr. Gar wood H. Atwood of Woodbury, deeded to plaintiff tract of land and by a mistake gave the plaintiff land on Prospect street, but not so much as the plaintiff now claims. Ttwood also gave defendant deed of land adjoining. There has been controversy between the parties at issue as to the boundary line between them ever since. As has been said, the defendant was given leave to recover his costs in the com- mon pleas court. Mrs Beach then ap- peaIed. It appears that in this case the
 PADDING SKELETONS. One Pound of Grape.Nuts Makes
 More Flesh Than Many Pounds