The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-10-05
SUPREME COURT CA&s
From LitchfieId County--Arguments
 At Hartford.

In the Supreme Court at Hartford, Tuesday, three eases from Litchfield county were argued. The first was that of Wiifred l.. Roy and Jerry J. Roy against Burton E. Moore All of the parties live in Winchester and the action was based on an alleged trespass. The Roys claim to be the owners of certain land located near the outlet of Sucker Brook into Highland Lake, and that the defen- dant trespassed on the land. In the court of common pleas Judge Welch decided against the Roys as to the ownership of the land but held that the plaintiffs had privilege of pre- scription to take water from one of the springs, on the land over which claimed that if the Roys. for whom he appeared, cid not nave a record title to the land. they had title by right of adverse possession. and that the court of common pleas did not have Jurisdiction to render a Judgment, in the case. He said that the trial was begun in September 1910, that the trial was not finished until October 1 3 and that the Judgment was not rem dered until January 3, 1911. As the Judgment had been rendered in a different term from the term in which the case was tried, the court had lost Jurisdiction.
 The appeal which Adelaide B. Strong and Alice Bostwick Sanford took from the order of distribution which the probate court made re- garding the estate of Alice c. Bost- wick, late of New Milford, was the next matter to occupy the attention of the court. The parties on the other side are Henry J. Elliott of Montciair N. J., and Henry M. Bald win. of New Milford, who are the ex- ecutors under the will of Mrs. Bost- vinE Ia T. nd Johns Parish of New Milford Mrs. Bostwick's estate was inventoried at $196,000. The record in the case says that at the time of taking the appeal Mrs. Strong was 23 years old and that Mrs. Sanford was 21 years old. They are children of a sister of Mrs. Bost- wick's husband. who died before she did. One clause of the will remem- bered Jennette l.. Gaylord for $15.- 900, and the probate court set this sum off to her as an absolute estate. The appellants claim that under the language of the will Miss Gaylord had but a life estate in the $15, ,000 and that they are entitled to share in what remains when the life estate terminates. There was a further ground of appeal because the probate court directed that a bequest of $3.- 900 to one Jane Taylor should go 10 St. Johns Parish. The appellants claim that under the language of the will the S3,O00 should be divided be- tween themselves.
 The next case went to the Supreme court on an appeal by the town of Winchester Thomas Moriarty and his wife. Joanna, were. each about 7S years of age in December, 1908. They were feeble and aside from their per sonal effects the only estate Thomas had was a house and lot in Win chester, worth about $500. He trans ferred the property to Daniel J. Mo riarty, and subsequently, Mrs. Joanna Moriarty became a town charge. The claim of the town was that Thomas transferred the property without con sideration and the town brought an action for an injunction to restrain Daniel J. Moriarty from selling it. the claim being that Thomas Mortar ty was liable to become town charge and the town wanted to hold the property as being estate liable for the support of the elder Moriarty and his wife. The complaint of the town was attacked in the lower court by a demurrer filed in behalf of the Moriartys. The demurrer was sus- tained and the case was taken to the Supreme Court from the final judg- nlent for the Moriartys which followed the decision on the demurrer.