Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-03-10
HORlCAN AND HANNA.
Colonial Trust Trying to Collect on .
 N,,e of Sl.0o0.


 Attorney Kennedy to-day in the SUI perior court, at short calendar. raised Il very fine question of law. Its dis, cussion occupied the greater part of Judge Cases time this forenoon. It was Il plaintiffs demurrer to the com plaint in the case of the Colonial Trust Co against w. w. Hanna ct al. On January 14, 1904, Lawrence Horigan and William w. Hanna, lessees of Forset park. borrowed $l,0OO from the Colonial Trust Co on their note, which was endorsed by William D. Richard. son of the Hellmann Brewing Co anc Jean Jacques. It was Il four months note and it has not been paid and the Colonial Trust Co brought suit against HOrigan and Hanna and obtained judgment for $1,010 in the district court. Subsequently lien was exc cuted, but the amount has not yet been collected.
 Meanwhile Mir Hanna's father, John. died at his home in New Britain, leav- ing personal estate valued at S14,W and realty valued at $65 5000. He left three children, William w.. Mrs Eliza beth Anderson and Mrs Fanny Basney. The property was equally divided among them in the will, but Williams share was left in trust for his main- tenalce with John Boyle of New Brit. ain. Some time after the trust was removed from Mir Boyle and vested in Mrs Anderson. The will provided that in case of Williams demise with out issue his portion of the estate should go to the other children. and if he left issue the property was to be- come theirs upon his death. He is still unmarried. The plaintiff. repre- sented by Attorney Hunt. maintained that Mrs Anderson, under the will could withhold any sums she pleased if she decided her brother was not ill need of funds, and on that ground he asked for an injunction restraining William from collecting the rents, for he held that Hanna was in control of the entire estate and managing it to please himself. and that Mrs Anderson was trustee, nominally. Mir Hunt also asked for an injunction to prohibit Mrs Anderson and Mrs Basney from pay. ing over to William any part of the estate or any part of the income from it until the judgment of the district court is satisfied. Still. though he en> joys actual possession of the property. he keeps his creditors at defiance. whereas his portion of the estate should he applied to the payment of his debts. Mir Hunt contended. Mrs Anderson as trustee has not the power, he claimed, that Mir Boyle as trustee possessed.
 Mir Kennedy in reply stated that it was to provide against any improvi- dence on theaPrt of William that his part of the estate was left in trust. Mir Kennedy claimed the plaintiff Ina" no grounds for suit.
 Decision of the court was withheld. It will be awaited with much interest, as there is only one other case like it in the books.
 Attorney Bronson gate notice that he would not oppose Attorney Ely's motion for treble damages in the case of Burpee against Atwood. and that he would withdraw his motion to have court informed Mir Ely that he would allow treble damages.
 The only divorce heard was that of Vena against John RochOn. Intemper- ancc and cruelty were tho grounds, of the action. The evidence. which was furnished by Mrs RochOn, ner sister, Mrs Bertha Seeley of Plainville, Philip Rainville. bartender. Peter Laverty and Alfred Massc0tt. was to the effec' that ROchon was quite frequently in. tOxicated and was by no means indus triOus. Frequently he struck his wife. and it was habit with him to throw light2d lamps at her. One morning at about 2 o'clock he turned her out of the house and threw lamp after ner while she held their 2-years-Old child in her arms. Several times he struck her. They happened to meet once in an express office after plaintiff had filed her petition for divorce and the defendant struck her and tore a sleeve out of her shirt waist.
 Resides being given decree shc was also granted the custody of her child. which is now 2 years old. The ROchOns were married in Nassau. \. 1 IT November 1U 1Sof