The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-12-09
SMALL MOTIONS IN SUPERIOR
 COURT TODAY

Many small motions in pending ac- tons were heard and granted during he Friday short calendar session of Superior court, conducted by Judge Frank D. Haines. An answer on the plcadingS must be made in two weeks in the matter of the Lawyers Title & Trust company against Aiming J. Snai [h.
 The same time allotment for plead ings was made in the case of Joseph Building company versus Mary Whe- Ian ct al.
 David M. Reilly appeared for Will hedmtna Meyer who has been unable to collect a judgment received nearly two yeas ago of S100,000, against Virginius J. Mayo, at one time prominent New Haven manufactures. Property in Brooklyn of considerable judgment, has been attached. Plead in gs by the defendant will have to be made in one week. the case having been in the Fairfield county courts for IA months. Otherwise a foreclosure action will likely follow.
 In the matter of Joseph Castel1ott against Simpson Brown & Company, permission was granted for the ex- animation of a well.
 Headings must be filed in two weeks in the action of the T. A. Scott company. Inc. New London, againS- the Bridgeport Dock & Dredge com- pany-
 An answer on the pleading in two weeks was also ordered in the case of Julia l.. Rogers against Schwartz brothers, or judgment will be entered.
 Answer or judgment in one week was the order in the suit Of G. D. Richards against the Connecticut Elec- tric company. Two weeks time was allowed in the action of Timothy Loughlin against Walter H. Bowes. One week was granted for an answer of h1~or company against Lena H. Frank; and two weeks in the suit of the Episcopal Society of Trinity Parish, in an action against the City of Bridgeport. A bond of SIS must be filed within two weeks for prosecution on the ac- tion of Abraham Rachelson versus Abraham Murlov.
 Answer of Judgment in two weeks was ordered in the case of Mary l.. Mayhew versus the Stamford Hall company; and similar time allowed for the filing of a bill of particulars in the case of Daniel Koehler versus Alfred w. Church, a Greenwich case.
 A statuatory continuance was grant ed in the case of William Ziegler, Jr., ct al, trustees of the estate of William Ziegler, against the Land Map Realty corporation.
 As soon as the plaintiff in the divorce case of Edwin A. Brook versus Catherine Brook, has secured employ ment, he must pay an allowance for defense to his wife, amounting to $50; and a weekly support allowance pend- ing the hearing of the action, of $5 week.
 During the short calendar session of Superior court held by Judge Frank D. HaineS this morning, George .. aMuter, who is asking a modifica- ton of a court order regarding ali Inony, was ordered to pay $10 week pending a divorce action of which he is the plaintiff Counsel have agreed upon other than a cash con- sideration in the matter of allowance to defend. Attorney Jacob Klein ap- peared for Mauter and John J. Corr for his wife.
 In thet case of Rose AsdeI1an vs. Asder Asderian, pleadings must be entered within two weeks. Two weeks time was also allowed for pIeadings in the matter of the Fidel- ity Title & Trust Co.,, administrator for William Kyle, against the city of Stamford; the plaintiff also being of the Lock City.
 A motion for alloance to defend in the divorce action of Alfred w. Church vs. Elsie Church, prominent in Greenwich society, was put over | for a week Due to the fact that States Attorney Homer s. Cummings appears for the defendant, and is oc- cupied with Superior criminal court. the case will not be heard until Jan | Dary,