The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-02-13

parties in 1894 bought the tracts of land in question and built houses thereon. The finding of facts states that Mrs. Beach did not claim the fifty feet front on Prospect street until she found there was not room enough on the upland of the lot for the house. She had decided to build and she then claimed that her deed gave her fifty feet on Prospect street. She finally accepted twelve feet Then the parties at interest quar- reled over the boundary line.
 Charles H. Miller vs. John T. Cross Error in sustaining the plea in abate- ment. Order remanded to be proceed ed with according to law. Opinion by Torrance, J.
 Charles T. Miller vs. John T. Cross. Plaintiffs appeal from common pleas court Judgment, in which defendant was awarded costs.
 The Waterbury Lumber and Coal Co. vs Patrick. T. Coogan. Error; judg- ment set aside. Order renanded for judgment to be rendered in accordance with the opinion. Opinion by Andrew, IC. J..
 The following cases were heard at the last session of the court in this city, but decisions were not handed down to-day
 The Worcester Manufacturing com pany of Worcested, Mass, vs. the Wa terbury Brass company. Defendants appeal. An action for $500 damages for refusal to pay for a $350 automatic TO- tary polishing machine, payable in brass tubing The defendant, Water bury concern claimed that the machine which was for the polishing of tubing would not work The district court in l Waterbury found damages of $35O for plaintiff.
 The Bowditch Furniture company Vs Daniel A, Jones. Defendants appeal. On May l, 1899, the plaintiffs sold to de- fendant a bill of furniture amounting to s156.sO, and on which there is bal ance due of $1O2.35 as alleged. Judge Hubbard in the common pleas court gave plaintiff damages for $1O2.S5 ana costs. and the defendant appealed. It appears that in this case Jones, who IS a dentist, bought furniture from one F F Hum. in 1895. Hum at that tune being the manager of the BoWoltcn company. The two had an oral agree ment by which the furniture was to pc paid for in trade The finding says the 1 agreement between Hum and Jones as claimed by the Bowditch t'urnlture campany was never ratified by the hoard of directors. The defendant heio that he could not be held to any other contract regarding the mode of pay ment for goods and services other than | Ia GI1hGp0l1pnClV left the concern and when the concern $ bill was presented to the defendant the latter held that if Hum took the prop erty of the plaintiff and sold 1t without right, it was fraud upon the company for which the defendant was not liable. The court rescinded the claims or the 1 defendant.
 The National Savings bank vs. Julius l q Cable. ct als Defendants appeal | Tn June. 1899, A. J. Burke and wife started to build house on Kimberly avenue, They obtained builders loan from the bank in question on the prop ertv and put the money in the bank to be drawn out as they wanted to pay on the house. After, some money had been used they indorsed the bank DOCK to John Edwards former real estate op- orator in this city, who is now said to be out of town, directing the bank to al low him to draw the balance of the money for "the completion of the bulld- ing" Before Edwards left the city he gave Lawyer Cable an order for the money remaining on the face of the book then amounting to $SO0.9O. The Burkes were astounded when they learned of this action. They had already assigned what was left on the book to i the Fredericks Bros, for groceries. Both l the lawyers and the grocers laid claim to the money and Attorney J. B. Futile for the bank, brought suit of inter- pIeader and asked that the bank be di- rected to pay the money to him. The court rendered judgment for Fredericks Bros It is from this Judgment that Cable appeals, claiming that there were two errors in the lower court
 Dora Levy and Henry Levy vs. the Metropolis Manufacturing company, all of this city. Defendants appeal. Ac- tion brought in June, 1899. Defendants sell mats on the installment plan. In 1898 an agent named Payne sold two mats to Levy on State street for $1.40. Then another agent called and said that the first agent had no right to sell the mats, and wanted them back, as alleg- ed. The return was refused, and an ac- tion for $19 damages was brought be- ] fore justice Greenspun. Defendants | claimed they never got proper notice of the hearing. Judgment was given by default for the plaintiff. Execution was taken out, but service was stopped by an injunction from the common pleas court restraining the plaintiff from col lecting the execution. The injunction was made permanent, and the defen- dants now appeal.
 Harrison Hewitt vs. Peter J. McNer- ny. Defendants appeal. On June 20, 1900, Mary A. Devereaux sued May fGouin for $250. The title to the cause of action was transferred to Harrison Hewitt, a lawyer, and the latter recov- cred judgment in the common pleas court for s23.43 and s75o costs. Hewitt took out execution, putting it into the hands of Constable Bree, who made de- mand of Peter J. McNerny, also con- stable. McNerny refused to pay the ex- ecution. In answer he said: "On June 6 Catherine Shea paid to defendant 29 ] due May Gouin for personal services, and S6 12 for services of papers Said