Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-11-18
IN SUPERIOR COURT.
Lawyers Provoked at Way in Which
 Cases are Dragging.


 Cases are Dragging.
 The lawyers of Waterbury will not
 make whole lot of money this term of the superior court for business Is clogged by the Lawlor will contest and the court goes out on December 2 q few weeks hence. MT O'Nelll stated at short calendar to-day before Judge Roraback that the case will run up to Thanksgiving day and maybe day or two in the following week. This announcement was received by the other members Of the bar with fallen i faces, for no business to them means 1 no money, though the docket is over crowded. Tn view of this condition of affairs there were no assignments 1 made. but if there is time to dispose of any other business it shall consist of the cases of Atwood vs Burpee and Walker ys the city.
 In the contested divorce suit O. James Connolly vs Margaret B. Con. nelly tho plaintiff was ordered to pay $25 as an allowance to his wife to de- fend the suit. Attorney Slavin. .her counsel, stated that she Is practically cripple from rheumatism and is without means other than what her hands provide. The motion was op- pOSCu Dy AtIOElSy IGuSieS.
 An order for further publication was allowed in the divorce suit of Julia Slade vs Felix Shade. It is believed the defendant is living in Greensboro, N. c.
 The motion heard some weeks ago for alimony pending trial of the d. vorce suit of Mary F. Seaman vs Ben jamin W. Seaman was reopened ar the request of Attorney Bronson. There Is cross suit ill this matter and both were combined. Attorney Pierce appeared for Mir Seaman, who testi- fled as follows: He has been In town eight years, that he is now manager Of the Danbury Hat Go on Center street. When his wife entered suit his business was attached and that was practically the end of him here. He owed, he said, about $2,300 at that time. He had no receipts or bills, as the attaching officers cleaned almost everything out of the store, and what they left they knocked around. Tho property removed was worth $4,OOO to him, but it was so handled by the officers and their helpers 1t was re- duced almost one-half in value. He had only $o5 when he left town and reached New York After telling of his troubles there he was asked which was the south side of Twenty-sixth street, and he said he did not know. He was a few months in New York. but he could not tell the number of any of the houses he stayed in. The court rather tartly advised him to re- fresh his memory on that matter. He could not tell, until after some hesi- tation in what year he was married. He said first it was about fifteen years ago. in 1892 or 1893, but after telling of the various places he has lived in since then he said he thought it was in 1884 or 1885.
 Up to the time of his marital trou- bles the Danbury Hat Co was SUD- posed to be owned by Mrs Seaman. 1t was in her name, but neither had put any money in the enterprise. At first Mrs Seaman worked in the store, but for the past five years she did not About two years ago he went into the brokerage business, buying out John B. Doherty. now deputy county sheriff E. H. Sears went in with him, but in September, 1903. he sold out. Last May his wife brought suit for divorce or something.'' he said. laughing.
 A motion for Judgment of foreclos- ure and law day in the suit of Mary D. Hotchkiss vs Richard Fowler ct al. was put over to next Friday. The Watertown Savings bank wishes to amend its bill of particulars in it's suit against R. H. Mattoon, ct al. The matter will be heard Tuesday.
 Decision on defendants demurrer in the suit of Arthur Lyman vs Leroy z. Humphrey. This is a suit that prom ises to be very interesting to all spec. ulators and all others interested in real estate. A contract was made be tween plaintiff and defendant, by which the latter bought q number of lots for $2.57O. He paid down S35 and was to pay SIS a month thereafter, though illness or lack of business occupation defendant was unable to pay the monthly installment he was not to suffer, but if for any other reason he did not pay the bal ance due was immediately payable. Defendant has paid one years install- ments and now plaintiff claims the balance of the $2.4OO.
 The demurrer in the suit of Mar saret Bowling. ct al. vs Mary Lacey for the annulment of the latter's mar riage to Edward Lacey, deceased, has been sustained. Attorney Russell. counsel for the defendant, held that the plaintiff and her sisters and broth CT were not entitled to set up such claim as the annulment of defendants marriage and the court sustained him. This ruling will have big effect against the plaintiffs case when 1t comes to trial