Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-11-04
SHORT CALENDAR TO-DAY
Sisters Want Marriage of Edward
 Lacey Annu.le

At short calendar in the superior court to-day demurrer ill the sl1t of Margaret Bowling vs Mary Lacey was argued. In this suit itsis alleged that Mrs Lacey, while housekeeper for Edward Lacey, deceased. and before she had become his wife, exerted a great and undue influence over him, resulting in their marriage, notwith- standing that he was opposed to the union. And that after the marriage and while he was yet under the alleg- ed undue influence referred to, Mrs Lacey persuaded her husband to deed all of his property to her, she thinking that by this means of getting posses sion of it it would be effectively and forever beyond the means of his rela- tives to recover it from her. In other words, the plaintiff and her sister say that Mrs Lacey thought deed to the property would be safer way to get possession of it rather than by MT Lacey's will. Plaintiff says now the property was obtained by defendant by fraudulent means-that is through the undue influence they allege. They ask the court to set aside the deed to the property: they want Mrs Lacey's
 marriage annulIeds and $7,0OO dama-
 ges.
 The matter was not finished this
 morning, the attorneys, Carmody for
 the plaintiff and Russell for the de-
 fense, agreeing to furnish briefs. The
 marriage took place on February IS, 1904
 The court ordered the bill of par ticulars in the Watertown bank case to be itemized in relation to claim E for S4,21O. :. The divorce case of Sarah Lapine and Andrew Lapine went over to next week.
 Attorney Miss O'Neill argued a de- murrer in the case of Isabella M> Pet tus vs Leonard Gait. Attorney Lock- wood of Norwalk said that owing to the high temperature of the political situation in Norwalk, whence he halls, he was unable to consider the demur-
 Ter until he got out of the vortex of politics.
 | The court replied there was nothing new ill Norwalk being stirred up. It would be news he said to hear other wise. This suit is an issue of s the everlasting contention which has made Mrs Mary Wright Smith of fBridgeDort
 the most famous litigant in the Nut
 meg state. It seems she deeded some
 property she owned in Westport to the plaintiff which was subsequently,
 attached i'll lawsuit.
 The following motions have been filed in the suit of George A. Gray vs
 St Patrick's church:
 Defendants motion that the plain tiff file q bill of particulars in the above case.
 That he inform the court whether the contract declared upon in his colnl
 plaint be in writing or by parole, and | if in writing that he make the same part of his complaint
 plaintiff's motion for copy of con tract.
 Plaintiff's motion for bill of particu-
 next Tuesday.
 An additional order of notice of publication was grantedSin the di- vorce suit of Nav Warren against
 Harry Warren. The defendant was one of the trolley strikers who left town immediately following their trial and acQuittal in the superior court It was agreed bv counsel in the case of Sarah w. Futile vs John w. | Gaffnev that in case an answer is not l filed by 10 o'clock Tuesday morning l judgment shall be taken by the plain- l tiff Cases set down for trial by jury next week are Christopher Lawolr's
 anpeal from the action of the probate
 court in approving the will of the late
 Rev Martin r. Ilawlor: Fred Atwood ys Judge L. +. BurDee, and Julia O.. and Joseph Corbett vs the Colonial Trust Go, two cases.
 Wednesday,, II o'clock. Thomas F.
 Lunny vs the City, and Robert Walker vs the City, Thursday.