Waterbury Democrat., 1902-02-21
MORE ABOUT PARSONS BANK
Receivers Ask Privilege of Sel-
 ling a Lot of Notes.


 March 10, at 10 a. m.. as Day of
 Sale-An Old Connecticut Indemnity
 Suit Revived and Testimony Re
 viewed-The Judge Reserved His
 Decision.
 At short calendar in the superior court this morning, Judge Gager pre- siding, the following eases were set down for hearing next week: We'd nesday, New Haven Trust company vs w. NJ. Hurlburt: same vs W. N. Nelson, jr; Oscar W. Cornish ys Leary Brothers. Thursday, Frank lin W. Downs vs American Ring com pany.
 In the suit of Thomas Norton, ad- ministrator, vs the Scovill Manufac- turing company, bond of $100 to prosecute was ordered.
 A motion to sell credits and choses in the case of G. s. Parsons & Go was allowed. The various amounts figured Up about $21,- 900 Attorney Cole, counsel for the receiver of the bank, stated that the old banking firm of Holmes & Par sons carried on their books from year to year q lot of notes and securities of other kinds aggregating $S1 ,OOO All this paper the receiver found to be worth only about $21, ,OO0 and now they wish to get rid of it and asked the court for advice. The court granted the motion, setting the day of sale as March 10, at 10 a. m.. the respective debts to be advertised in some local paper
 The executor on the estate of the plaintiff in the suit of Alfred Rogers vs Samuel Root ct al was allowed to be substituted for Alfred Ray. Ad- ditional order of notice was allowed in the divorce case of Susan A. Litch- field vs George A. Litchf1eld. Defendants motion to erase in Jane E. Reilly, administrator. ys Lewis A. Platt, was argued at consid erable length. The insurance metb- ods of the Connecticut Indemnity as- sociation were gone into in great de- tail by Attorney O'Neill for the plaint- if Colonel Burpee. counsel for de- fendant, sets up most ingenious de- S-~-Nt AAS SefiO lIIdl NIT heIlIV was induced by third party and certain representations to take out a policy i'll the Connecticut Indemnity. These representations were false and the agent or third party had no right to make them. Reilly did not decree that any benefit from the policv should go to him. Whatever benefit that might arise from ft should % to his wifn un fo
 or even to his heirs, but direct to his wire, ana 1t was provided that before she could benefit from the policy he should be dead. Therefore it was the cause of death that gave her a cause Tor action, not the false repre- sentatlons of the third party through whose agency Mir Reilly was induced to take out the policy. MT Reilly might have been living yet and might not have been damaged one bit by the raise representations of the third par l ty Mrs Reilly, therefore. Is moi uamaged. She was in no way in- 1ured, because she did not pay one cent on the policy. She is not suing for herself, but for the benefit of her husband's estate. and it will be re- called that MT Reilly made no promise that his estate should benefit by his policy. Mrs Reilly sues for 5000 and the defense holds that all she is l entitled to Is SIPS, the sum paid by l her husband on his policy. The court took the papers and reserved decis- 1 ion.
 A demurrer in the two suits of Ed ward and Robert McGrath occupied q good deal of time. Attorney Robin l son, counsel for the defendant. the Equitable Life Assurance company of New York, held that the plaintiffs had no insurable rights in the life of Margaret McGrath, their sister. unless they had a pecuniary interest At | torney Cole replied that the plaintiffs did not take out the policy of S2.OoO on their sisters life. but that she her self had the policy issued and nomin- ! ated them as her beneffciaries. As Tor MT Robinson's claim that under | the circumstances the plaintiffs had no 1nsurable rights in their sisters life that was all nonsense. Attorney cole cited case, which is common enough, by the way. in which one person took out a policy without the Knowledge of the other party, through the 1nstrumentality of the agent. Tn lHlS case Ine agent practiSed fraud on the company, yet the courts held the nrst party had insurable rights in the life of the second party. There was no such element as this in the case in question. Decision was re- l served.
 ] The divorce mill was set in motion. The petition of Elizabeth Hopkins ys Jess Hopkins and Inez H. Manning ys William H.. were continued to next week. Emma Coddingham's peti- ton was taken LID first. She alleged her husband William was guilty of l ntemperance, cruelty, infidelity and desertion, but only on the latter ale gation the petition was founded. The couple were married in Newtown. May 2, 1888, and on October 9, 1897. when they were living at 54 Vine street, defendant deserted. Twice since then he called at her house once for his clothes and again for some furniture. He is supposed to be living in Bridgeport now Charles Baumgartner and Burton c. Smith testified for the petitioner. A decree was granted. Attorney Root pre- sented the case.
 Sarah Ann Porter's case against