The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-05-19
RECORD IN CITY
 COURT CASE HAS BEEN MUTILATED
Unusual Situation Confronts Counsel in Legal Tangle
 Over Dispossession.
LAWYERS AWAIT
 JUSTICE M'MANUS
Document Returned to City Court From His Court is
 Minus Contents.


 today oyer controversy between members of twos of the best known law firms in this city which, arising out of a simple suit in summary pro- cess, has resulted in many startling g situations, chief among which is the partial destruction of city court files. As 8 result of the controversy juris7 diction of both the city court and of Justice of the Peace Edward J. Me Manus have been questioned and through decisions and motions made in the two courts the lower one is now asked taeitly to reverse the decis- ion of the higher one.
 During the legal moves that have been made the merits of the original case, which was that of Susan w. Bishop against George W. Smith, have been submerged, though many lawyers declare today that the controversy will prove of strategic value to one side or the other.
 The attorneys involved are Ph1o c. Calhoun and J. Walter 9Scheffer of tn e law firm of Marsh, Stoddard & Day. and Vincent L. Heating of the firm of Cu1linan & Cu1linan. The mutilated docket which is likely to become the subject of Judicial inquiry within the near future, was on file with City Court Clerk Theodore B. Steiber. All that remains in that office of the or
 
 the summons and complaint has been torn out.
 The suit was one of summary pro- cess to remove George H. Smith, a we'll known shoe repairer, from the first floor in which action was made at the fnstigation of Mrs. Bishop by Deputy SheriH Cunningham, March 8. Smith alleges that the action resulted when the owner was offered more rem tai by a prospective restaurant owner. The action was returnable before Jus ttce McManus at 10 o'clock, May 15. As explained yesterday by the jus tfce a provision of the city charter permits the transfer of a case to the city court under certain conditions.
 On May 13, Vincent L. Heating. a young member of the Fairfield County Bar, association, appeared in the of fee of McManus to transfer the case to the city court. Notice is said to 1aave been duly served but in the ab- sence of McManus from his office the complaint was left in the justice courts docket.
 Such transfer is said to be per n1itted provided it be made 4s hours prior to the date and time set for hearing of the action.
 In this instance it is claimed that notice was filed within the stipulated time but that the papers were not 1e- gally renewed, the time of hearing be- ing set for 10 o'clock May IS, whereas MT. Keating on May 13 is said not to have removed the docket until 11:37, as noted on the complaint
 Upon learning of this fact through Attorney Calhoun, an exception to the Jurisdiction of the city court was inn mediately entered behalf of Mrs. Bishop. The plea was heard before Judge Wilder, who ordered counsel to return the papers to the city court docket when he endorsed them: "P1ea to Jurisdiction sustained and dismiss ed from Docket
 It Is at this point of the controversy that tactics said to have been re- sorted to resulting in partial destrhc- ton of the court records.
 Though counsel were ordered by the court to return the records they were spirited away from the docket. Attorney J. Walter Sclheffers of that firm, was ordered forthwith to return them to the city court. This order was complied with but not until the complaint had been torn from the folder
 This act has created Q. furor in court and legal circles, there being no pre- cedent it is said, where dockets have been destroyed in courts here.
 AS a result of Judge W11der's de- cision on the original plea, Attorney Heating, of the office of Cullinan & & CuIlinan, has filed in the justices court a plea to jurisdiction of the jus tice court, claiming that the case had legally been transferred to the city court under the statutes. Justice McManus has been asked to set 8 time for hearing on this plea
 In an interview with a reporter for the Farmer yesterday Justice Mo Manus sI1bstantiated the facts of the case.
 make a statement relative to the mu- t1Iatton of his files said:
 ''AI I know about tIais ease is that Mir. 6cheffer of the firm of Marsh. Stoddard 6 Day, took the files intact from my office during my absence and returned them in their present con- dition. have nothing further to say, Any other information will have to 1oe gfeaned from MT. Scheffer or the parties involved
 The odd legal situation of a, plain tiff having his own case thrown out of court is also presented in this con troversy. About 75 per cent. of suits brought in. justice court are transfer ed under the city charter to the city court They are seldom returned to the initial court and the ruling of Jus tiee McManus on the pIeadings which is expected to bring forth much in teresting law governing the conduct of justice and city courts, as laid down in the city charter and Cennec- ticut sctatutes. is awaited by local at torneys with great interest.