Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-07-31
hRS lATRROP LOSES CASE
Suprome Cout Upholds Some and
 RsVsIsss Finding in Others.

The decision in the Lathrop, di- vorce suit arrived to-day from Judge Reed of the superior court after a months anxious waiting for 1t. The | decision is for the defendant Edwin U. Lathrop. In other words Mrs La throp's suit is denied. What next step her counsel, Attorney John O'Neill, will take. he has not yet de- cided, but in all probability he will again enter suit for maintenance after a reasonable time has elapsed, and If during that period Mir Lathrop has refused to give what she may think a proper and sufficient allow ance.
 \. For the past two or three months Mrs Lathrop has been in receipt of
 50 month by order of the court, but besides this sum she also received 3500 at one time. The denial of her Ipetition cuts of this alimony, and so Is rests with MT Lathrop to make ar arrangements for her support, for sup port her he must as long as both of them live. but in what manner is the |jQuestion that the courts will in all probability be called upon again to decide.
 The decision did not cause much surprise in view of Judge Reeds re- marks at the conclusion of the hear ing late in June. He then said that there was very little for him to de- eide. The suit had been originally based on three allegations, infidelity, tntolerable cruelty and desertion. Judge Reed states that early in the hearing the first allegation was prac- tical}y withdrawn; that the alleged acts of cruelty were said to have been committed two years prior to the par ties separating, and desertion was therefore the ony grounds left on which the petition could be consid- cred.
 This Is the end for the time being at least of this remarkable and sen sational suit, which has been before the public for three years
 Judge Reed disposed of the suit in these few words: Judgment for the defendant"
 The supreme court has handed down decisions in cases of local inn port, among number of others. The most important was that of the Sco- will Manufacturing Go against the city of Waterbury, in which the ques- ton of water rates and the manner of charging the same is involved.
 In 1903 dispute between the company and the city arose, the com pany claiming that the system in cal culating the rates was wrong, that the water used should be charged in bulk, not so much per meter. The company refused to pay the amount charged after good deal of discus sion, and the city in the end threat ened to cut of the water. The com pany then got an injunction against the city preventing its employees from carrying out It's threat. The matter went to the court and the city was sustained. An appeal was taken by the company and the supreme court decided for it. finding error in the judgment of the superior court.
 In the suit of Frank Errichitti and Pasquale Contaldi, an action for an accounting. the action of, Judge Peck III 1nt ulstflCt COuFt III OTueIluS uH accounting and sale was sustained. The parties were in building CO., partnership.
 Judgment was reversed in the suit of Michael Della against Joseph Ca prio. This was stabbing affray and judgment for $350 was given Caprio in tho district court. Della agreed to sign over his property to pay the judgment. but in the last moment changed his mind.
 No error was found in the judg- meIt in the case of George w. Wood- bury against l. Winestine and wife. South Main street. This was an agreement to sell shoe store. |Woodbury agreed to buy and sold out his business in Worcester. Mass, and had some of his goods removed here. Upon arriving here he found the Winestines had undergone a change of mind and would not sell. He was Igiven judgment in the district court.