Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-02-18
THE O'kEEFE CASE.
Attorney Burpee Says He Will Take
 It to Suprems Court.

The special session of the superior court lasted day longer than was eX- pected, closing to-day at 1O:3O o'clock. And it closed as it began in very un- usual way. At the beginning Judge Burpee, counsel for the ScovilI Manu- featuring Co in the case brought against it by Michael O'Keefe. threw down the gauntlet to Judge Wheeler. | insisting he would not go on with the 1 case because he was not ready. and the court insisting that he should, as the case had been regularly assigned. When the case was called Judge Bur | pee was not present and the company | was not represented.
 Toward the close of yesterdays Ses- | sion Attorney Bronson, counsel for the | defense in the case of the Cooperative Savings society of Hartford against 1 F J. Kingsbury ct al, informed the court that he would not be present to- day, having other engagements. The court insisted that Mir Bronson should be present and that it was not profes- sional to desert his clients interest in the last scenes of trial.
 Mir Bronson was not in court this morning when the arguments in tho case were resumed. Attorney Lewis, Mr Bronson's partner. appeared and informed the court that Mir Bronson had delegated him to get Attorney Minor to represent him as he had busi- | ness elsewhere, and that MT Minor was | unable to he present, being sick in | bed.
 Judge Wheeler's face flushed and that he was very angry was only too | apparent. He said that the court re- | garded Mir BrOnson's action as extra ordinary and no engagements short Of the supreme court was of importance l enough to excuse his conduct 10 ms client and the court.
 The only arguments made for the de- fense were few words made hy MT
 Lewis.
 Decision was reserved.
 Late yesterday afternoon Judge
 Wheeler handed down his decision in
 the case of Michael O'Keefe against
 the Scovill Manufacturing Go. He
 awarded the plaintiff $2.7o0 damages There was no memorandum. Judge
 Bllrpee said this morning that he would take the case to the supreme court on
 the grounds that the superior court had
 no jurisdiction In the case. that de
 fault had not been entered before the
 case was begun in the superior court
 that it was tried under protest. and
 finally that the case should not have
 been tried because the statutory twenty
 days notice had not been given
 C'Keefe sued for 5000. He fell into
 q trench on the defendants premises
 one evening as he was returning home
 from work and is now permanent!
 lame.
 Judge Roraback handed down decis
 ions in two cases.
 In the case of the Rev Vincent R
 Dillonis against Constable Walter B
 LanneD for S1.OO0 for false arrest an,
 imprisonment, judgment was given th'
 defendant. The courts memorandum is to the effect that it was not elaine,
 there was any irregularity ill the pro cess of arrest or detention until afte certain period. when the plaintiff contends the defendant refused to ac ccpt bail and thereupon locked tn plaintiff in cell in the court house 1. The time which elapsed from the ar TtSt lp tilt 1tPiS' the conclusion that there was unlawful r detention. and the delay in giving bal , was largely owing to the excited con
 dition of the plaintiff and his friends s then ignorance of the process unde . which the plaintiff was arrested an D held. and also to their failure to Il : that which was necessary to obtai
 his release.
 Il The concluding paragraph of tn | memorandum says that there was n0tf h ing in the conduct of the defendaI | showing that he acted maliciously ( s exceeded his authority and duty. s In the suit of Charles \. Baldwi '- against the city for S5.d00 damages fo n injuries received by failing down q Q area to the old Scovill house, iudgmer Q was given tine plaintiff for nonin; h damages of S-0 and his costs. l. The memorandum in this ease say l. that the evidence showed that the cit S had performed its duty in prutectin s the area way with an iron pipe railin:
 and that the plaintiffs injuries wei
 not caused by :i neglect of duty on il
 part Ii was difficult to un,IeTStan
 from the evidence. says the memOril dUm. how the plaintiff could LaN been injured as he claimed if he ha
 ! used nrors.r care"