Waterbury Democrat., 1901-11-08
SHORT CALENDAR, WHEELER, J
Receivers of Parsons Bank Make New
 Move-Other Business

Receivers of Parsons Bank Make New
 Move-Other Business
 Judge George ". Wheeler picked up the threads or business in the superior court thls morning at short calendar. The following cases were assigned for trial to a jury next week: Tuesday, Josephine AIaher and Margaret Walsh, appeal from decision of commissioners appointed by probate two cases), Juli- us ChotZianoff against Patrick J. Cal laghan, Peter Burns, appeal from probate; Wednesday, Mary $. Davis against Charles $. Smith, Matthew CoIwell against the city of Waterbury; Thursday, Wilson Black tt TX, admin iStrators, against David Griggs etal.
 The motion by the receivers of the Parsons bank, MessrS H. :. Chase ana J. :. Elton, to sell certain closes and notes, was withdrawn, and their re port of the condition of tine bank from April to October l of this year was accepted The report is as follows: Cash in Colonial Trust Go .S15,3T .O6
 Receipts and disbursements since last return:
 Receipts.
 Cash as per return April 2 .. $1,341.I2 Balance due on Church street
 property .....-.-...-...-. l4,uOV.uo Interest .......-..-- -Uo-ot Ledger account from H. \.
 Conner, May 22, 1901 .... 10000
 1Otal SIO,O4O-Ut
 Contra.
 City and town taxes ........S 10000 F. O. rent t. 200
 Ralouco S15 3I7. .0e
 X hearing was given the motion of Mary J. Srahan for alimOny lending the hearing of her petition for divorce from her husband, James J. Attorney CarmOdy appeared for her. Mrs Sra han testified that about twelve years ago she was married. One child has been born to her. Five years ago her husband deserted her. Since then she has contrived to make a livelihood for herself and the child. daughter of Il years of age, by dressmaking. Her husband is employed at Steel x John sons factory, earning she said, about $16 q week. The court ordered that her husband pay her $5 q week.
 Arthur W. Lawson was allowed to amend his complaint for divorce from his wife. Lillian. His counsel was At 1Orney Root. It was stated that the original grounds for divorce was de SertiOn. and since service was obtained upon the defendant it has been ascer- talned that she has passed as the wife of one Arthur !. Hodges in Providence and Boston. Therefore the above al- legged discovery will form the basis of the petition for divorce. It was or dered that the defendant and the CO., respondent be informed of the change in the petition.
 The divorce case of Mrs Althea Ben jamin was continued to next week. and the case of Mary A. Keller against Her husband. Frederick w., also went over to next week.
 The case of Edward l.. Tucker for divorce from his wife. Lillian. was then heard Attorney II. 4. Bizzell of Springfield presented the case The defendant withdrew opposition. The petitioner testified that at present he lives in Winsted and is there engaged III the harness business for himself. Previous tO going to Winsted he had 1lved in Waterbury two years. One child was born to him. which is dead He has been married many years and knew of no reason for his wife refus- ing 10 live with him. only that she did not care to live with his people. They parted in Maine. of which state peti- tioner is native. So far as he knew she was willing to live with him now His father is dead and his wife lives i'll Enfield. Attorney BizzelI stated that she is willing that divorce should be granted. Judge Wheeler said the position of the petitioner was q peculiar one. Between bis duty to his wife and his dnty to his mother. it was hard for him to decide. Living with ones DeOple-in-law was often the cause of unhappy marriages and the source of many suit for divorce But now that petitioners father is dead. the court saw no reason why the pc 1itiOner should not see his wife and endeavOr tO induce her to live with him. There was no reason why they should continue apart :.ny longer. Therefore the court would have to deny the petition
 This concluded the business of short calendar and the case of Thornton. ad- ministrator, against the Consolidated railroad was taken up. In this case the question of trespass on railroad property is involved. Plaintif'S daugh- ter. Annie, lived in Watertnwn with her people. She was accustomed to come to Waterbury by train once OF twice a week and always left at the same hour. She had q communication Iickel- For twenty years or more peO- ple were accustomed to cross the rail- road where the girl was killed. in fact 1t is said the highway nDens onto the tracks Damages of $5.OO0 is claimed She was either boarding the train or had already done so and was thrown off when the train moved and was Killed. She had her commuters ticket. and now the question is was she nn the premises bv invitation of the railroad comnany. having one of ifs regular tickets in her DossessiOn at the time. or was she merely a tresD1sSnr? Rurnne x CarmOdy for the plaintiff and Kel- lOgg for the defendant.