Waterbury Democrat., 1902-03-31
RECEIYED TODAY
Guilfoil May Close Up Stairway
 That Was Burned Out

to Dime Savings Bank Denied
 Judgment i'll Crimmins Hutchinson
 Case Stands as Given ill Lower
 Court.
 X batch of judgments were received this morning from Judge Gager of the superior court by Clerk Marsh. They are as follows: Ii the contested di- yorce case of Margaret vs Joseph How ard i'll which the parties are 64 and II years respectively, the petition is de nied. The courts memorandum is as follows:
 At tlia specified time i'll the bill of particulars there was some wordy trouble between the plaintiff and the defendant but it arose out of matters extraneous to their personal relations and were not due to any animosity of the defendant toward the plaintiff As to the alleged blow on November ,, the testimony is not conclusive. If the injury was of the character al- legged, the plaintiff could hardly have failed to tell her regular physician, who called next morning. She did not tell him. Whether single act of personal violence might justify a decree it must be clearly proved and be of such nature as to justify an inference that it may be repeated. The plaintiffs troubles with defendant were due largely to her ill health for which de- fendant was ill no wise responsible. The petition is denied''
 Norton administrator vs Scovill Man. ufacturing company; defendants de- murrer sustained ill two points, over ruled on one.
 Two motions by Attorney Bronson that the Citizens bank and the Fourth, National bank be considered preferred creditors of the Parsons bank were denied.
 Crimmins vs Hutchinson appeal from the Judgment of the district court, Judgment for the defendant. This sustains the action of Judge Welch of Torrington in the district court. Plain tlT sought $1,O00 damages for alleged injuries to her property by the defend ants property falling into hers.
 Matilda Loud vs Frank H. Loud, ex- parte divorce suit petition was denied. The court held that cruelty as alleged was not proved and that visit by the defendant to the plaintiff at Bantam after the date of desertion alleged in the complaint showed that assertion had not taken place at that date. This was plaintiffs second attempt to pro- cure divorce.
 The injunction proceedings by Ed ward McGrath and the heirs of the Robert Fruin estate, against Michael Guilfoile, was decided favorable to Guilfoile. That is, MT Guilfoile may close up the stairway which he main tained on his property for the con ven1ence of the other two. The courts memorandum is as follows:
 The rights of the parties denend upon the construction of the contract. May 9, 1895. I am of the opinion that 1 the rights then given the plaintiffs was l to pass over the stairway and hall 1 then existing in the Guilfoile portion of the block. The duration of the rights did not extend beyond the existence of the hall and stairway over. upon and 1 through which the right was to be ex- ercised. The contract contains no covenant to rebuild. Of course Guil- foiIe could not by an act of his de stroy that right but when the subject over which the right was destroyed without his act or consent, the right
 was destroyed with destruction of the premises. From the evidence pro- 1 duced upon the hearing it appears that l the northerly, or Fruin property, was 1 totally destroyed by the fire, the Guil- foiIe property in which the hall and | stairway were situated was partially destroyed. but i'll this partial destruc-
 tion the stairway was entirely destroy ed and while few of the timbers under the hallway remained So that they could be of some use i'll rebuild l ing, yet the hallway was substantially destroyed. I must find that the stair way and the hall mentioned i'll the contract were partially destroyed. All of GuiIfoile's second floor between the hallway and the South Main street | was destroyed, the side walls were i'll some places substantially uninjured l and in others were partially destroyed his rear second floor was badly dam aged, but it's restoration could fully be called repairs.
 ."The McGrath portion of the build I ing was the least injured. The roof I was totally destroyed, so were his sec
 ond story petitions, between him and l.Guilfoile and his second floor and side
 walls were damaged but not beyond the part of repairs as distinguished from rebuilding. I have attentively examined the authorities cited by botI parties and such others as I could find and concluded that upon the acts il this case the law is that by destruction of the premises substantially as above described, the rights of the passage l set forth iF the contract were ey tinguished. At least this conclusion k
 so highly probable that I do not fee justified in continuing the injunction
 The temporary injunction is dissolved