Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1903-1917, 1904-05-17
MANY CASES IN COURT.
Several OF Them Against Trolley Co.
Findings Received.

The cases Of Lucius p. Alcott ana
Frederick Dingwell, both of Wolcott,
against the Connecticut Railway d
Lighting Co were begun i'll the superior
court this morning before Judge Rob-
inson. Alcott sues for $1,000 damages
and Dingwell for $4,000. They are
represented by Attorneys Russell and
Rogers, and the defendant by Judge
Burpee The plaintiffs claim that
while driving on North Main street on
September 20, 1902, they were run into
by a trolley car opposite house No lllS
and were thrown into a ditch. Al
colt claims his right thigh bone was
bruised and injured, that his head was
cut and he received other injuries OF
minor character. Dingwell did not
come out as well. He still bears the
result of the accident and will carry
them to the grave. He says his left
leg was broken, his left side was in
pured, his collar bone, his left ear, his
head on the left side were all badly
cut and bruised. He further claims
that he was laid up In the local hOspi-
tai six weeks, that for six months he
was on crutches and that his left leg
is about two inches shorter than the
right And In consequence of these
injuries he is unable to work at his
regular employment carpenter. He
still walks with the assistance Of
cane and is unable to close his left
hand.
Both cases were defaulted to jury
in the district court and Judgment for
500 was given in each. An appeal
from that Judgment was taken and it
is this that is now on trial.
The dnfancQ Is 00ntrihIfArU nap1i-
gence. In other words, it is claimed
both plaintiffs were under the infu-
ence of drink at the time the accident
occurred.
Findings In the suits OF DelabelIa
VS. the Holmes, Booth & HaydenS Co
and Carnes VS. McEvoy have been re-
ceived by Clerk Marsh of the superior
court. Both cases have been APPEALED
to the supreme court. A jury heard
each and gave verdict for the de-
PENDANTS.
It is possible that the assignment of
cases in the superior court will be dis
arranged and that the cases down for
hearing tomorrow. Benjamin and
Benjamin and wife and Ann Mayhem
will have to go over. This morning
Judge Robinson was informed that
Judge Lowe, counsel for the PLAINTIFFS,
was taken quite i'll yesterday and it is
very doubtful IL he will be able to ap-
pear in court tomorrow. Judge Bur-
pee, counsel for the defendant the
trolley company, objected to the case
going over as they would lose their
place on the assignment list and posi-
bly, not be heard this term. Action
was deferred until tomorrow. These
cases are the results of an accident
that happened on the Watertown road
during the trolley strike. Mr. Benja
min, his wife and the other plaintiff
were driving In their wagon when
trolley car crashed into them, laying
them up for some time with their in
jurfes.
Attorney u. G.. Church and Edward
L. Frisbie, as commissioners on the
estate of the late Mary A. Chapman,
gave a hearing to a claim for $1,000
by Mary Lawlor to-day. Mrs Chip
man left an estate of about $4,000
and quite recently in the superior
court an effort was made to break her
will but it failed. Mary Lawlor was
an old friend Of Mrs Chapman. She
lived in her house situated at the cor
ner of East Main and Brook streets
for many years, and, according to the
evidence of her friend, Mrs Margaret
Sweeney, was her private secretary,
masseur and companion from 1880 to
1903. Mrs Sweeney was in Mrs Chip
mans employ seventeen years and
lived with her up to the year preceding
her death. Whenever she would feel
lonesome Mrs Chapman would send
Mrs Sweeney for Mrs Lawlor and they
would SDend hours together Mrs
Lawlor also collected Mrs Chipman's
rent and during all the time she acted
in these various capacities Mrs Chip
man never paid her one cent, but fire.
quently fntimated to her that she
would remember her In her will. But
APPARENTLY she forgot her when she was
drawing up that instrument for there
| is no mention OF her in it. 1t was
claimed by the contestant of the will
when that matter was tried in the SUI
perior court that Mrs Chapman was
under undue influence and incompetent
when she had 1t drawn up.