Putnam patriot., 1914-09-25
SUPERIOR COURT
Two Husbands tiiyen Divorce Decrees
Other Matters Heard snd Disposed Of.

short calendar session of the superior court in Putnam Friday morning, The eolirt allowed the claim of F.. D. Will bur Co.,, against The A. F, Wood Com l panv of Danielson and also a claim Of Robert Dunfeld for S50 against the same concern. ,The claim of Louis i Kennedy, which amounts to several 1 hundred dollars, will be heard at next short calendar The Wood Company l is in the hands of a receiver.
 There were two divorces granted. Charles Back of Killingly, about 70 years old, was granted divorce from his wife Elizabeth, 5, on the grounds of assertion. The couple were married l in Southbridge. In l9os and shortly after the plaintiff removed to kil- 1 ingly where he furnished a home but ] his wife refused to come and live with l him. She came to see him once and l remained half an hour nnd that is the 1 only time he has seen her and she l never answered his letters. Other NAkHSSseS Ill NiiS tAcN NSiS N'SNiN NN " :. Winslow of East I<ilingly and Judge Harry F. Back of Danielson, nephew of the plaintiff.
 1 The second decree WAS granted Deloss Clinton Wood of Sterling from his wife Ella now of Long Beach, Caifor- mia. The couple were married in Providence in July, 1890. After living together for nine years the husband l remonstrated with the wife for re- eeiving attentions from men and she | left him and never returned. He went | to live with brother who has since died and the woman who had lived in 1 the house the time his wife left him | had also died and he stated to the court that there was no living witness other than himself to the actual oc. | curance of his wife leaving him. Other witnesses in this case were Charles H. Rounds of Sterling and Greton Sweet of Foster, R. l.
 After short calendar the case Of the | Roseweigs, mother and daughter, against the town of Canterbury was resumed. 1t was concluded in the af- ternoon and the judge took the papers, The actions were to recover for injuries received by teing thrown from | wagon, plaintiffs claiming the town was negligent in maintaining an un. safe road.
 By agreement of counsel the case oi the Rhodes Noodson Company vs the Putnam Manufacturing Company was assigned for Wednesday, Oct. 7th to give witness from Manitoba chance to reach here. The action is one that arises out of sale of cotton to the de. fendant company.
 In the Superior court, "Wednesday morning the case of Gordon A, John stone of Atlanta, Ga, vs the Daniel sonvillc Cotton company came to sudden termination when Judge Jos eph P. Futile granted the defendants motion for non suit. The plaintiii was suing the defendant company to recover Sl1 900 for commissions for selling it's plant in 1912. The evidence showed that while he in all probability sold the plant that he was authorized to make the sale by J. Eugene Cor coran of Dedham, Mass, who, while at one time secretary and itrensurer of the company was at the time the con- tract was made no longer connected with the company. The Corcoran family at one time owned the stock of the Danielsonville company. A time came when funds were needed and money was sborrowed from Marshall ! Field of Chicago After Mir. Fields death the company was pressed for payment and finally turned over the | stock to the Field heirs and 1t was after this transaction that Johnstone sold the,plant. In arguing the non- suit the plaintiff claimed that even If Corcoran had no authority to bind the company the company was estopped from denying the agency and further would be liable on the ground of rati- fication. In granting the motion Judge | Futile said that 1t appeared that John stone had acted in good faith and should recover his Commission from somebody but he did not see how the defendant company could be held liable.
 Following the above case a jury was ! immediately selected to try the case of Alfred Arseneault vs Walter Kings ] bury. Arseneault Is minor Of 1T years and the action Is brought by his father, William Arseneault as his next friend, to recover dag ages for injuries received when the boy was struck by an automobile at Plainfield, Sept. s, 1915. It,was alleged that the auto was owned by KingsbuTy and driven by his servant, Elmer Gasgell, that the defendant drove negligently, at an un- I lawful rate of speed and did not have 1 the machine under control. That the boy WAS knocked down and that his leg and collar bone were broken, that he was badly bruised, sustained se- we're shock and had suffered great pain. Damages of 5000 are eiaImed. De- ] fendant admits the collision, that the boy was hurt, that he owned the auto mobile but sets up that he was not to blame. The boy was struck while In i the highway on the way home from 1 sehoaf