Waterbury Democrat., 1902-03-21
|D|VORCES BEFORE COURT.
Judge Gager Granted Two and
 Continued Two More.

ODpOSllS AII0fn0XS--Ine McGfaln
 Guilfoile Injunction Was Also Heard.
 In the superior court at short calen- dar this morning a hearing on defend- ants demurrer of the complaint in the suit of Thomas Norton administrator ys the Scovill Manufacturing company. Plaintiffs child, Catherine, was drown ed ill the water known as ScoYill'S defendant in not protecting the water by fence or something else. The de murrer says that the child had no busi- ness on the property, trespassers not having a license to the premises, fur thermore, the complaint forgot to state whether from the highway the ground Is yard or mile. The plaintiff re- piled that in the cases cited by the de- fendant the places of danger were not shown to be attractive. In this case the place of danger was attractive to children, children gathered there to play. They did. not know it was T dangerous place. The defendant did. and therefore it was the company's duty to the children to protect them by putting up a proper fence to keep them off the property. The court asked Mir O'Neill this assumed question:: If the court owned ground in which was a stream and lot of boys play ball in the field and one of the boys falls into the stream and is hurt Is the owner liable?' MT O'Neill said that some of the courts held yes and some no in that case. However, that case was not this case, and the boys were old enough to see danger, whereas the plaintiffs daughter in this case was only years of age. Decision was re- served.
 Four motions in the Parsons bank case were next heard. One was for advice, one to deny the application of the Citizens National bank to be de- clared a preferred creditor of the Par sons bank and q like application by the Fourth National bank and a motion to accept the sale of certain claims. Re garding the petitions of the banks it was claimed that they should be held as general creditors and that no reIa- lations existed between them and the Parsons bank were of such. Attorney Bronson objected to this claim and At torney Cole for the receivers replied that Attorney Bronson had no business in court in this case. He was present merely to annoy and at the pleasure of the court. It was pretty late day he claimed, to file such petitions. He said there Is about S12,000 or S140OO on
 hand to be paid to creditors and a few other small matters to be disposed of and the receivers will be ready to close up the affairs of the defunct bank.
 It has been only three years since this petition of the Fourth National bank was filed, and on account of all this delay in bringing it up it deserves no consideration now" said Attorney Cole in concluding q long argument. The motion for advice regarded claims by Mrs Parsons and R. K Brown. who were, 1t is said, depositors in the de- funct bank. There is no opposition to paying them and the court ordered that the dividends paid the other creditors be also paid them. The claims amount to about S90O0 in all.
 Attorney Bronson opposed the mo- tion to approve of the sale of the claims amounting to $S1, 900 that were sold two weeks ago for S5O5. IF. &. Chase, one of the receivers, was sworn. and he testified that he looked over the' list of claims pretty thoroughly. was pretty well acquainted with them any, way, and that they were not collecta le. Efforts made to collect soma of them failed, and his acquaintance with others showed him they were uncoI- letcable. The circumstances of the sale were gone into, showing that MT Bronson and W. IF. Hurlburt We're the only bidders. Mir Bronson bid S1. Mir Hurlburt bid $1OO. The bidding went on and MT Bronson took NIr Hurlburt aside for a few moments. MT Bronson did not seem to like the bids going up. and MT Chase said that unless $500 was bid the sale would be adiourned. MT Bronson i'll his argument said that when he saw the bids going up he took MT Hurlburt aside to ascertain the situation and that only for him the bids would not have gone I'D. The court said he sa no reason why the sale should not be accepted and so or dered. Decision was reserved on the other motions.
 Dlvorces were then taken up. The first was that of Matilda Loud ys Frank IT. This was Mrs Loud's sec ond attempt to procure a decree Cru city and desertion were alleged. Mrs Loud testified she was married on Oc- tober 24, 1895. ill Long Island. She how lives ill New eYork For thre years she lived here: then her husband sent her home to her mother The tetsimOny showed that the defendant was a drinking man and that finally he left the plaintiff when she was il and unable to provide for herself The court did not see any evidence support ing the allegation in the case, and NIr Carmody. counsel for the petitioner. that the last named act was cruelty in itself. The court dis agreed with him. saying that the statutes construed cruelty to mean violence or threats of such. The case was continued to give the at torney time to prepare briefs on cruel ty.
 Further evidence was given in the ease of Mary ]. Srahan against James !. Srahan. Intemperance was the al- legation in this case Mrs Srahan and Sheriff Rametti gave additional evi- dence in that line, but the court was still dissatisfied. At the last hearing further than that the defend ant was "a drinking man. was shown against him. This case was also con- tinued.
 Anna NJ. Hurlburt was more success full. Her husband was Howard H. He lived ill Mill Plains and took to drink ing almost directly after his marriage. I. T. i'm