Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-11-29

| | and the jury in the superior court to- day was Fred E. Atwood of Woodbury against Judge Lucien F. Burpee for 1 $5,O0O damages. The plaintitrs case was conducted by Attorney N. K. Bronson and the defendants by Attor- ney William H. Ely of New Haven, and Attorney Church of this city ap- peared for George E. Tompkins, who plays the dual role of co-defendanr and co-plaintiff. The suit was first ! instituted in the name of Attorney Lawrence L. Lewis, Attorney Bron- sons partner, but he was removed upon the application of MT Tompkins, thus disposing of that suit. MT Tomp- kins declined to bring another suit, whereupon he was made co-defendant.
 Before beginning the case Attorney Bronson stated that the transactions alleged in the case took place twelve or fifteen years ago and that his priri- ] cipal witness, the wife of his client, was Ill and utterly unable to be in court He was not aware of her ill., ness until this morning. Tn conver- sation with her he found that she did not recall many of the things he hopes l to prove, but that he had no doubts ' | memory was stirred up.
 George Tompkins' view of the trans actions alleged was contrary to his, and without Mrs Atwood Attorney Bronson did not see how he could pro ceed. The facts as he recalled them were: George E. Tompkins, deceased, left three children and his widow. His estate was insolvent. The children Il over their individual claims to Judge Burpee, who was appointed admins trator, he to settle up the estate and pay a balance to plaintiff, whose wife would testify to this. Attorney Bron- son claimed Judge Burpee did not pay over the balance nor make any ac- counting of it. But how he could prove this without plaintiff he did not see. s.l. sssl',s ss ss
 The court said he was inclined to try the case because he had put over an important case for it and because the i plaintiff had urged trial He would, 1 however, give Attorney Bronson time to get Mrs Atwood's deposition. At torney, Bronson had to consent to this and the, trial began.
 ssS The defense was a general denial
 MT Tompkins then took the stand and testified that George Tompkins, deceased, was his father-in-law and that the latter was indebted to him $3, POO. Witness endorsed a note for him for that amount and he had to pay lit. There was contract drawn up between Judge Burpee and the heirs 1 of Mir Tompkins. Attorney Bronson l tried to get this contract into the evi- dence and Attorney Ely tried to oD- (struct him. Witness said he saw but one contract signed. A contract was l Ithereupon introduced which Attorney Ely claimed was the contract in ques- ton and Attorney Bronson held other wise The paper in question was an assignment of the policy on MT Tomp- kins' life to Judge Burpee to collecr upon and settle up the estate.
 Witness said he did not think Judge Burpee signe .sslc paper in question.
 It was anotHer paper he signed. An other was then handed him and he said that was the contract signed by l the heirs and Judge Burpee and this was the first time he saw it since it was signed, in 1889. Attorney Bron- son desired to, put it in evidence and l the defense objected. Attorney BrOn- son in reply to the court said he WIS unable to get the paper and that he contents of the paper were practically his case. The court replied that he was not inclined to allow the paper in, but, however, he would permit him to go as far as consistent with the conn plaint.
 Attorney Ely stated that the paper showed nothing against Judge Burpec.
 Attorney Bronson then moved that he
 be allowed to amend his complaint. His motion was denied. but he was
 allowed to withdraw his witness and put Judge Burpee on the stand.
 After the usual preliminaries Attor-
 nev Bronson questioned him as to cer- l tain papers filed by him in case sim l liar to this heard in Litchfield some
 time ago. Witness said in that case that he testified he knew nothing of l the contract mentioned now and that I Attorney Bronson never asked him
 for the contract. The only paper he l signed and to which he was q party I was the assiGnment of the policy. He ! said he had recollection that the bal ance of the estate, after paying the l s1ehts, should he paid over to MT At I wood, if any were left. but that was a | matter between the heirs. not him.
 and furthermore there was no balance l left. The alleged contract was in
 plaintiffs possession over a year, wit
 ness said, and he did not come across 1 it until about three months ago. One quarter of the estate was paid to Mrs 1 Atwood and to Mrs Bailey. another
 danghter, and George Tompkins, IT,
 and the plaintiff received S600. The l balance was reserved to pay or the debts of the estate and for the sup port of the widow. One of the claims was note held by Judge Lowe. An other was $500 for taxes. He had q l receipt for that. but not for Judge
 T,owe's claim. There were two or l three tax collectors at that time
 Chauncey R. Webster was paid l Judgment in foreclosure of about S1.- 300. That property sold for S2.OnO, leaving so much in wttness's hands. Another claim was for $700 against the Tompkinses. father and son. This II r Y-~l Y c. -