Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-05-20
IN SUPERIOR COURT.
Divorces Among the Cases That Were
Considered To-Day.

The divorce petition of Mrs Fannie
ID. Scranton against Minot Scranton
was denied by Judge Robinson at short
calendar in the superior court to-day.
Mrs Scranton alleged intOlerable cruel
ty and the evidence she produced in
support of the allegation did not
satisfy the court as sufficient to grant
the petition. Yet this evidence in the
opinion of the court showed absolute
neglect on the part of the defendant
to maintain his family. 1t showed that
he was wholly Indifferent to their
needs and that so long as he could loll
around all day, chew tobacco and have
a swig of hard cider, he was satisfied.
His wife and children would have
starved, the evidence showed, We're it
not for the assistance they received
from the plaintiffs folks Such was
the evidence. and that, according to the
statutes, is not intolerable cruelty.
Mrs Scranton lives in Cheshire.
An additional order of notice of pub
ication was allowed in the ex-parte
divorce suit of Emma against John
Stenson. Desertion is alleged in this
case. Some seven Or ten years ago the
defendant Is believed to have shipped
to New Zealand or Australia, and
whether his ship was lost or what be-
came of him Is a mystery. At all
events nothing has been heard from
him since
The motion for hearing in the de-
murrer to the defendants answer in
tue suit of John F. Fitzgerald against
the Scovill Manufacturing Co went
over to next week by agreement. The
only motion argued concerned the suit
of Walter III. Holbrook against Her
bert s. Rowland ct al, trustees for the
Brook Manufacturing Co, which is In
process Of dissolution In this matter
the amount Of damages asked is $15,-
1000. The contention is a peculiar one
and involved in a great deal of law.
Briefly it is this: Mr. Holbrook sold a
quantity of eyelets to certain shoe
manufacturers after an agreement be-
tween him and the Brook Co that the
latter would be responsible for any
claim for damages that might arise
through imperfections in the goods
Claims were made upon MIN and he
: therefore set about entering suit, but
whom to sue he was in doubt, because
meanwhile the Brook Co had applied
for a receiver and Mr. Rowland and
others were appointed trustees, and the
court allowed four months for the fling
of all claims against the company.
Attorney Bronson, counsel for Mr.
Holbrook, entered suit against the
trustees. and Burpee and Carmocy
counsel for Mr. Rowland. claim it is
the company that should have been
sued as that concern was still in life
and shall be until it ceases to exist BIZ
order of court But the four months
allowed by the court for the filing Of
claims having expired long ago, the
claim is set up that it Is too late to
sue the company now. Decision was
reserved.
Assignments for next week are as
follows: Tuesday, Benjamin and Ben
jamfn and wife and Ann Mayhem VS.
the Connecticut Railway and Lighting
Co, and Charles A. VS. Clara Sprague, a
contested divorce; Wednesday, John
NJ. Wells VS. the town of Woodbury.,
and Joseph Seidel VS. the same; Thurs
day. Charles McHugh VS. the Connect
cut Railway and Lighting Co.
The case of Max Beiner VS. Jacob
Mussler has been withdrawn The
suits of Wells and Seidel against Wood
bury promise to be extremely long
cases. The first is over a change of
grade in the highway and the second
for injuries and death on the highway.
Attorney O'Neill, counsel for the plain
tiff In each case, informed the court
that he will have at least twenty-five
witnesses and that he had heard the
I defense will have thirty-f1ve.