Norwich bulletin., 1915-05-01

Brown said that matters in the re- oeivership were in very good shape and that Mir. Thayer had been ex- pecting to pay the final dividends in six months. He praised the ability. of MT. Browning and his fitness for dis charging the duties of receiver. Mir Browning was advocated for the ap- poinJTnent by Attorneys 4. M. Brown. T. T. Tanning, V P. 4. Quinn who addressed the court
 The name of Charles H. Haskell was proposed for the appointment by Attorney Herman Alofsin, End.
 In making the appointment of At torney Browning, Judge Gardiner Greene said that he appreciated all that had been said in advocacy of Thomas Browning, but as all the matter passed upon by the receiver Amos A Browning. The bond for the receiver is $50,0OO. The two gentlemen whose names were before the court are brothers and it is said that Thomas Browning desired that the appointment should go to his broth CT.
 Short Calendar Matters.
 The account of Sidney H. Miner, re- ceiver in the case of Quinton I. Co., bel against the Hatch Oil O., was approved and the receiver was dis charged. It was stated that the Iia-
 
 assets were $1.2O0. The receiver was allowed S200 for his services and only l per cent dividend will be paid on the claims.
 Headings in two weeks on default were ordered in Elva Newell Atwood vs. Philo Clark Atwood
 Answer or other pleadings were or dered in 10 days in Martha. Lorenz Vs. Shore Line Electric Ry. Co.,. and the same in Rubin Shapario vs. She
  in Eadley Potter vs. Charles I. Rath- bun.
 Manwaring Estate Administration.
 Judgment by stipulation was found for the plaintiff in the suit of Jere- mah J. Desmond administrator of the estate of James H. Manwaring, late of MOntville, against Mrs. Sarah E. AanwaTing and Norris W. Rathbun, both Of East Haddam.
 The decision in the case settles the question of the legal residence of James H. Manwaring at the time of bis death, which occurred on Septem- Der 29, 1914, at East Haddam, but he had lived the larger part of his life In Mo7tVille. He had gone to his wife's home some time before his death occurred, leaving the place in Montville because of the death of a woman who had been housekeeper there for himself and his wife for a number of years.
 Upon the application of sister of MT. Manwaring before the Montville probate court, MT. Desmond was ap- pointed administrator by that court, but in the East Haddam probate court Mrs. Marwaring. the widow, and MT. Rathbun were appointed administrators. The present court decision confirms MT Desmond as administrator and enables him to pro- ceed with the administration of the
 
 sresate an amount approaching S5O,- GOO.
 The permanent injunction asked for by the plaintiff was granted against the two defendants leach under a pen alty of s10000, and they are enjoin- ed from collecting or demanding any of the money due the estate of James IT. ManWaring or from preventing the plaintiff from having access to taking possession of bank books, notes, stock certificates of other pa pers of the estate, or from interfering in any way with the administration and settlement of the estate
 The defendants are further direct ed to acUount to and pay over to the plaintiff all the money and funds of the estate which they have taken or which they have in their possession. All the issues are found for the plaintiff but the court finds that the Tlaintif ic not entitled to recover any damages or costs in this action.
 Postponed.
 Matters that were postboned were the following: ----.---- Argument of demurrer fin Clancy vs. Taylor, petition of Edmund J. Cong don for reinstatement as attorney at law, hearing on petition for set-off in the Thames Loan and Trust Co re- ceivership, default for failure to plead in Murphy and others vs. St Mary's R C. Church corporation of Branford, dissolution of temporary injunction in Coast and Lakes Contracting Co., vs Martin and others, approval of Re ceiver's third sen1i-annual account in Thames Loan and Trust Co, argu- ment of demurrer in Murphy and oth- CTS vs. St. Mary's R. c. Church cor poration of Branford, foreclosure Judgment or disclosure of defense in Robinson vs O'Neil
 Two divorce matters that were on Inc uncontested list were postponed. They were Armstrong vE. Armstrong