Waterbury Democrat., 1901-11-13
THE FORD CASE.
A Tangled Up Family Affair Be-
 ing Aired in Court.
DIARIES AND WITNESSES

Produced in Court To-day in an En- deavor to Shed Light--The Brynes Case Also Being Strengthened Out In Superior Court-Heirs of Mra Byrnes Endeayoring to Prove Theie Right to Some of the Property. Judge Welch of Torrington resumed the hearing of the suit of Byron Tut
 tie and Mrs Sarah Carter against George H. Ford of Wateryille at 9s o'clock this morning in the distrlcr court. This suit is q family lfair- Ford is son-in-law of Mrs Carter anh already his wife has received her pof- tion of her fathers estate, and it is claimed that this suit against him is delaying the settlement of everything pertaining to the matter.
 G. Fred Barnes, q foreman for ths | Waterbury Brass Co, testified this morning that with MT Ford he exam ], ined the box in which the deceased MF i Carter kept his papers; that he did not recollect seeing paper on which Mir | Ford claimed he and MT Carter had l done some figuring. This box was ex- amined two days after Mir Carter's l funeral in the presence of two menl- berS of the family.
 A number of diaries were introduced and ill one of them appeared an Item l to the effect that MT Carter called one { day at MT Ford's in Waterville and I spoke to nim about a claim for S1OO l for rent. MT Ford did not remember | exactly what day the visit was paid,
 but he remembered he owed MT Carr I ter about that time something like Il. ..I
 that he had made considerable repairs and improvements on the property, l and MT Carter said he would take that into consideration. Mrs Barnes claimed
 that the above item should have been l about $1.S00.
 | Attorney Herman, representing the plaintiffs, thought to make trouble for MT Ford on his failure to produce cer- tain books in court. He appealed to { the court on the natter but the court decided that MT Herman had not made the demand positive enough to make the court think he needed the books very much. The hearing of Peter Byrne's appeal l from probate was resumed before
 Judge Wheeler and a jury in the su-
 1 perior court this morning. The trend I of the evidence was that Mrs Byrne | having left no children or a will. and
 a claim of S1,2O0 by her husband
 1 against her estate was denied by tlle
 l probate court. This claim was found-
 ed upon his statement that he had pur- l chased a lot on Hickory street and ] that owing to a misunderstanding with the previous owner his name was | omitted in tle deed It was always | understood between MT Byrne and his wife that the survivor should get alI 1 that was left by whichever of them | should decease first. Both had worked hard the greater part of their lives f0r | their mutual interests and no stranger or outsider should share i'll the fruit | of their toil But before Mrs Byrne, l in whose name the property in question: was, had made will she died, leaving l the mistake that she promised every l day to have rectified still uncorrected. ! Then at the probate hearings the heirs | disputed the husbands claim of Sl 200, 1 the amount he had paid for the lot on 1 Hickory street. The heirs are James | Rohan. Mrs John Manion. Mrs C.. I Guish and Mrs w. s. Carter, all first | cousins.
 The contention of the heirs was that l the property was purchased with mon- l ey saved by Mrs Byrne before she | had married, and ill support Of thiS I claim bank books were produced shows l ing that she had deposited with the olt 1 Elton bank away back in 1869. Th4 ! case went to the jury at o'clock.