Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1900-1903, 1902-11-21
WHAT'S IN A NAME:
Suit Was Not Brought Against
Party Intended.
ATTORNEY PEASLEY'S ERROR

Led Colonel Burpee Also Into Error
The Trouble Arose Over the Proper
Name Of the Connecticut Railway
and Lighting Co-One Divorce Case
Went Over Until Next Week
Since the day Shakespeare wrote
the question what's in a name it has
been repeated with a thousand differ
ent applications. To-day it was asked
in court in the form of a motion to
amend the complaint in the case Of
Nellie Northrop versus the "Connecti-
cut Lighting and Power company"
in which the plaintiff sues for $4,000
damages for injuries she claims to
have received in q collision OH North
Willow street last summer. Judge
Peasley, counsel for the plaintiff, en-
tered the suit. He claimed that Col
onel Burpee, counsel for the company,
accepted service. Colonel Rurpee
claimed he did no such thing. He
said that one day Attorney James A.
Peasley entered his Office and told
him he had a case against the "Trac-
i tion company" and would the colonel
accept service and thereby save him
port not to speak Of the expense, etc.
The colonel said he would. believing
the suit was against the Connecticut
Railway and Lighting company. But
later. when he saw the suit was against
the Connecticut Lighting and Power
company he thought there was some
mistake, but later found he was him.
self mistaken. But it eventually turn
ed out that the suit was. or rather
should have been directed against the
Connecticut Railway and Lighting
company. Though he is counsel for
both, he would still have it understood
that neither company Is the other, nor
is each of them both, nor the two of
!; them one. Now he would like to
know against which company the suit
should have been directed The com
pany named in the suit cannot be that
one because it does. not run trolley
cars in this city. The right company
could not be the wrong company for
though he is counsel for both, he could
not legally accept service for the right
one when the wrong one was mention-t 4
ed in the writ. If Judge Peasley was
wrong, he was himself right, but he
maintained lie was right and Judge
Peasley was wrong it was not his
province to set him right. That was
the courts business. Between right
and wrong and wrong and right.
Judge Peasley thought it better to take
the stand and testify under oath what
was in his opinion was right and what
was wrong In this question of what's
in a name. He testified that the teIe-
phone directory has it the "Connecti-
cut Lighting and Power company.,
some other directory has 1t some other
name, another directory has it under
still another name and he was always
under the impression that 1t was the
Connecticut Lighting and Power Go.
he knew the company did telephone
ana lighting business here, or If IL does
not, 1t once did. or was associated
with company that did so. Attorney
J. a. Peasley testified also after which
Colonel Burpee presented his phase of
the case The court denied the motion
but informed Judge Peasley that he
could have an order citing In the Con
nect1cut Railway and Lighting COM
pany as co-defendant, but before ha
can do this there will be another con-
nlct between him and Colonel Burnee
Wnlcn VIII show the vast difference in
what's in name. "A few other mo-
tions ~ minor Importance were aI.
lowed
The divorce case of Edith A. KNIGHT
against William Knight went over to
next week. ~
Inc order of business for next wee,,
i Mary =. Ryan VS. the city; John M
nolger ana Thomas TT. Hayes two
cases VS. the Consolidate Railroad com-
pany, beginning OH Tuesday.