Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-05-27
DEMURRER DISCUSSED.
Judge Robinson Listened to Talk on
 Fitzserald.Scoyill Co Case.

The principal matter that came be- fore Judge Robinsons attention at short calendar In the superior court to- day was a hearing on a demurrer III the suit of John F. Fitzgerald against the Scovill Manufacturing Go for $5,- 900 damages.
 1ne plaintiff, while In the employ of the defendant, suffered an accident to one of his hands through defect In power press at which he was working. He claims the defect In the press was Sknown to the defendant, and the de- fendant now sets up that the suit has no standing in court because 1t was in stituted after the period allowed by the statute of Limitations had expired. The accident occurred on January Il, 1902, and the suit was instituted Sep- tember IS, 1903. The plaintiff de- murred to that answer. s3.sEt [ Attorney O'Neill, who with former Senator Kennedy represents the plain tiff, cited the various statutes of limi- tation which apply to railroad compan- { les, municipalities and other corpora tions, whereby suits for damages for injuries or death cannot be instituted after the expiration of certain period, one year. He claimed that the case 1n question was not covered by any of the
  so. it can be only by implication. The statute is openly unconstitutional, be- cause 1t gives special privileges to cor porationS, or special rights which are denied to the ordinary person. law that gives special rights to one person and denies them to another is openly Unconstitutional. Suppose a man loses his property, can the legislature pre- lvent him from entering a suit to Set back that property unless he brings 1t within one year? Such law in sub
 tahoe was passed by the legislature bf 1903, and Mir O'Neill claimed 1t was lnquestionabIy unconstitutional, at east in its application to the case in question, because under 1t special pro- 1 tection is given certain quasi-public corporations. The law in operation when the accident occurred limited the plaintiff to three years to enter suit, > but the law passed in 1903, more than a year after the occurrence of the ac- cident limited him to one year. There fore the plaintiff claimed he had A year after the enactment of the statute bf 1903 in which to bring the suit, while tAe defense maintained that the new law limited him to one year after
 the accident happened.
 Judge Burpee, representing the de fense. held that the plaintiffs right to enter suit against the defendant for the injuries he claimed to have re- ceived expired on July l, 1902, for up to that date the limit was three years, but on and after that date the law lim- ited the period to only one year. The law of 1903 had nothing to do with tue case. Judge Burpee claimed the plain tn did not attack the constituttonal1ty of the law of 1903 in his demurrer, and furthermore, that there is no ambigu1- ty in the law whatever in its mention of corporations. The words "other corporations'' is plain. enough and means all corporations. So far as spe- cial privileges are concerned, the plain tiff Is not singled out above anyone else from entering suits against any corporation within a limited period While the legislature has no power to deprive anyone of his rights, it cer- tainly has the power to limit the time when actions against corporations may be entered. That power has never been questioned Decision was Ter served.
 The divorce case of Emma ys John Stenson was taken off the docket and will be tried in New Haven early in June.
 A hearing on defendants demurrer in the suit of the Dime Savings bank against Paul F. McAlenney was con- tinued to next week.
 Attorney Wood presented the re- port of E. R. Perkins as receiver for 2 the Domestic Pie Baking Go. As the papers were not complete the matter was continued. The court considered them too general in tone to be accept ed, and they included items which he gould not understand even after a Somewhat lengthy explanation by MT Perkins.