The daily morning journal and courier., 1906-03-07


 Fewer cases than usual are to be re- turned during the March term of the superior court. Here are the divorce litigants' names:
 Irene Ruth Williams (nee Barbour), of Meriden, vs. Charles Morgan Will Hams, of Plainf1eld, N. J.; married Sep tember 1, 1902; grounds, habitual intem- perance and intolerable cruelty; change of name asked.
 Charles F. Scofield vs. Louisa Bur- dick Scofield; married January 1, 1902; ground, infldelity; custody of two chil- dren desired.
 Della Dorman (nee McCarthy) vs. William Dorman; married May 8, 1896; ground, assertion; custody of two chil- dren asked.
 Alice Mix, of Seymour (nee Perry), vs. Frank Mix; married July 20, 1896; grounds, habitual intemperance for four years, and assertion; custody of two children asked.
 OTHER SUITS,
 Mrs. Margaret Motzer, of Meriden, sues the city of Meriden for $3,OOO. On February Il, 1905, the plaintiff fell on an icy sidewalk, breaking two wrist bones and severely injuring her spine.
 Nelson Morgan, of Groton, has brought a curious and interesting suit against the Southern New England Telephone company, in which lie asks for $2O.OOO. On July IA the plaintiff se- cured a residence in Groton, equipped an electrical current set fire to the house and totally destroyed it. The plaintiff insists that the house should have been supplied with protective de- vices.
 H. Wales Lines company, of Meriden, vs. w. H. Bliss & Son, of Hartford; common counts. Damages of $3,000 are asked
 Carl Fusco vs. Warner D. Judson; an action to compel the payment of $1,959, per an agreement of October ', 1902. The defendant, real estate agent, is alleged to have received the sum indi- cated on the account of the plaintiff from Charles Wilson & Co.,, of this city.
 The Russell Electric company, of Danbury, has brought suit against Mary s. Bassett, of Derby, for fore closure of a mortgage and possession of premises, the action being based upon a paomissory note of $2,OOO made No vember 19, 1904. The property is in Elizabeth street. Derby,
 FELL OFF BRIDGE.
 Clemente Spazante was an employe of the Consolidated road, and as such on August 3, 1905, was aiding In the re- moval of an old bridge at Collinsville. He fell from the bridge and was per- manently injured. He asks $5,000 daln- ages.
 Charles M. Danks, of this city asks $3SO66 for board and services from George A. Powell, Powell lived and died in Waterbury. In August 1905, the commissioners disallowed a portion of Danks' claim. Danks appeals from the acceptance of the commissioners report.
 Peck & Bihops have suit against the Connecticut Railway and Lighting company in which damages of $500 are petitioned for. On November 2S, 1905, while car of the defendant company was at Chestnut Ridge station, which is midway between Orange and Derby, it struck the plaintiffs team and van. There is a heavy grade at this point, and the plaintiffs insist that the speed should have been reduced.
 SMOKE TROUBLESOME.
 Elizabeth A. Smith, as administrator of the estate of Frederick M. Smith, vs the Consolidated road; suit for $S,900 The plaintiff owns property at 367 and 369 Howard avenue, near Lamberton street. She alleges jars and smoke from roundhouses in Hallock avenue. Ernest Wadewitz vs. Andrew Toeit- Ilein: suit on note for $1,5OO. Foreclos- Iure of mortgage property in Rosette street is asked.
 Charles Mann vs. Nora Horton Miller common counts, $1,500.
 c. w. Tiyon, of Meriden, vs. Julian Scholl & Co.,, of New York, $500; suit to recover on a defective road-roler It is an appeal from the Meriden city lcourt.
 CALLAHAN'S CASE.
 John Callahan asks $3,0OO from Con- stant A. Moeller, alleging that on Au- gust 13, 19OS Robert V. Callahan pur- chased and became the owner of a sa- loon at 160-2 Crown street. The plain- tiff says he advanced him $4O0 and ex- pended $75O in fixing up the place. The plaintiff also says he rendered services in the management of the saloon from August 19, 1903, to January ?, 1904 (which services were reasonably worth $1O per week, and which amounted to $2O0.
 The plaintiff asseverates that Robert V. Callahan refused and neglected te pay him any of these sums. On August 12, 1904, the plaintiff sued him for the recovery of these sums ir the superior court At the time of the bringing of that suit, the plaintiff says the defendant was indebted to Constant A. Moeller in the sum of $25O.
 While this suit was pending, 1t Is fur. ther set out, Attorney William A l Wright, as the agent and attorney fol Moeller, in order to secure the claim of the latter against the plaintiff in the prospective judgment, induced the plaintiff to make an assignment tC Moeller of all of his title and interest ir and to his claims against Robert V Callahan, with the express understand ing that the assignment was to be held as security merely for the indebtedness and that Moeller would claim under tht