Norwich bulletin., 1911-02-28

BRoudll5 II 6. V. con srock. ciaisns THSts Mkes aeparates frens
 f4is Money by }raud eants con-1 tract AnnuIled ant All iustpaent Mads
 otIser Sslits Brou2ht.
 Several new suits were returnest to tic clerk of the superior coqlrt on nlson- day for the first T tuesday 1n March, as
 Charles W. comstock has brosaEsst suit for $2U,0O0 against the q M RoD- ertson company of iMDntvil(As III WnlcN it is set forth that on July l. l8y4, E3e Rex Box company was organized W1ln a capital Of $4O,000 and started bt1si- 1aess at Tduntington. CoalE.s In 1895 iE increased its capital $10,000 and starf x ed at MontEille. On August z, I9Uo, President A. O.. Robertson snm fO the plafntin 56 shares of tine Rex Box com @ engaged in q prosperous and 1x1eraffve bal1fneSs and was earning and would declare A dividend of 10 per cent. an T nuarly. At the time of the purchase, however. the company was ulnabie to' meet it's liabilities and the stock company never paid g dividend.
 c. M. Robertson of Montst1le died Nov 2S, 1889, and prior and at the time of his death was engaged in the nanu- the estate of e. M. Robertson was nev 2 CT divided but tf1e business of the manufacture of paper boxes was .efa- gagged in and carried on by the heirs of the late c. M. Robertson as partners in business under the firm name of the Estate ofC. M. Robertson. The estate was incorporated in 1901 and the estate is really the c. M. RobertsoH company
 About June 10, 1896, the late A. SC. Robertson told the plaintiff that the business of the Rex BOX company WAS unprofita;bae and that H owed the Q. M. Robertson estate se, ,0uo, and 1t would be necessary to dispose of the business. but if the plaintiff would with him pur- chase the business and the estate WOul ] carry ons the business until the $6,000 owed 1t was paid, and then they Woui9 g serve as partners in the business and share equally in the profits. The plain tiff accepted the proposition June IF, 1896 and he and A. c. Robertson pur- ' chased it as partners and later, on Sept. !, 1896. they added machinery So the amount of $1,500. Tn accordance with the terms they entered into full control of the business. The plaintiff on several occasions asked the late A c. Robertson for an accounting, but was unable to secure one. On July l, I902, the late A. c. Robertson falsely and frandulently and with the intent to deceive and to induce the plaintiff tc dispose of his interest, stated that the business had failed to show a profit over and above the $6,000 owed the estate, and that the only way the plain tiff could derive anything from the in yestment was to sell his interest to the estate, and that he would pay the plaintiff $3,00G, and that while he or his brother, Tryon Robertson, lived, he would be paid 315o annually or tn interest on $s,ooo at 5 per cent
 tiff accepted the $3,090 and during thu life of A. c. Robertson he received $l50 a year For the last two years this amount hss not been paid. The late A. c. Robertson died Nov. g.. SSoS, and Tryon Robertson has refused to pay the plaintiff.
 The Rex company went into the hands of g receiver about Oct. l, 1886, and the affairs wound up by order or the court, and the $5,000 put into It was a total loss. The $s,O0o was aev- offered to return the ss,ooo and the $50 paid annually for six years.
 The plaintiff claims that upon tRe restoration of the $3,000 and the annu- al payments to the defendant that sald contract between A. c. Robertson ana and that this being done, that an ac- count be filed showing the business done since 1896 with the actual profits. and that the plaintiff shall receive one half the remaining profits to ffle pres eYlt time. He also asks that the court order the books of the estate produced to show the profits from 1896 to the present time, and $20.0o0 damages.
 Suit Against Now London.
 Lima Beckwith of New London sues the city of New London for $5,000 dam ages for injuries received Dec. 29. l9lO, when she fell into ditch in Broad street. The trench 1t is claimed was not lighted.
 Hattie Meyer of Norwich sues Abra- ham Jacobson of Norwich for the re- covery of the face of a note for $500 and claims $70O damages.
 A suit for 1000 damages is brought against the Norwich Belt Manufa3tur- ing company by Brown Bros. & Co. It is to recover on a mote for $2,981S7
 Suit for $16,Ooo.
 The papers in the suit of Walter 2. Whitaker vs. the Thames River Spe- cialties company have been filed with the clerk of the court. The claim IS for $16,000 damages for the failure or the defendant company to carry out HS COntTdSt. II WAS dkICcA Cll WI ". 1910, that the plaintiff should serve the defendant until Oct. s1. 1915, as super irtendent of the paper manufact turing department of the defendants mill. lie was to receive $3,000 year from sept 15, 1910, and when a second machine was put in he was to get $4,G00 year. On Dec 29 the defendant wrongHuliy discharged the plaintiff.
 Wants Divorce.
 Mary G. Hammond or New London brings suit for a divorce from Charles @. B. Hammond of Stonington on the grounds of ldesertion and intolerable cruelty They were married May l4, 1890, her maiden name being Mary G. Wilcox. She asks for the custody of their 10 year old son.
 WEDDING.
 6rowning-Race.
 A wedding of much importance in ty1o town <,f Ira r1ly1ir, nol p1aca1 MA1a-