Norwich bulletin., 1922-10-07
MOTION LIST MArTERS
 REroRE JUDGE JENNINGS


 Before Judge Newell Jennings of the superior court, the following matters on the motion list were disposed of at tho short calendar session in New London Friday morning:
 O'Neili, ct al. vs Geary. A6nr.. ap- peal from probate, 1, motion for accept ance of report of committee: 2, judg- ment, postponed. Walter Atwood vs Mary A. Atwood. alimony pendente lite, denied. Rogoff Vs Mariana, ct al, dis closure of defense or judgment, answer in one week. Mary Danko vs- John Danko, that the court pass an order thae defendant show cause why contempt proceedings should not be taken against him for failure to pay aiimony pendente lite. off. Armstrong, ct al vs Leverone, argument of demurrer, postponed. C. R. Macaulay Co. Vs RelyNa, ct al disclos- ure of defense or judgment postponed disclosure, no defense. Emily Elizabeth Relyea vs. William Henry Relyea, all- mony pendente lite, $9 per week, com- mencing Oct. 6. The Federal Land Bank of Springfield vs. Chesbrough, ct al, dis closure of defense or judgment, post poned. Hawthorne Sash 6 Door Co. vs West, ct al motion to set aside judg- ment against defendant Darrow, post poned. Williams vs Mahan, default for failure to plead answer in three weeks. Williams vs Mahan, default for failure to plead, answer in three weeks. Con tinental Sugar 6 Products CO vs Wiech. l, order of notice, off; 2, continuance, off; B. judgment by default. granted; T. judgment postponed. Webb Vs Johnson. 1, order of notice 2, continuance, post poned. Graham vs Jansson, ct al de- fault for failure to plead, pleadings in two weeks Purtill vs Purtill, ct al, de- fault for failure to plead, pleadings n three weeks. Donahue vs Davis. argu- ment of demurrer, off. Erskine vs Lin coln, argument of demurrer, postponed. Peters vs Keiskers, non-suit for failure to plead, pleadings in two weeks Cot tren vs. Cottrell. ct al., exrs non-suit and judernent for appellees for failure to file reasons of appeal, motions, all reasons in three weeks. U. s. TruSt CO of New York. ct al, Exrs. vs Shore Line Electric Railway Co. Old Colony l Trust Co. Vs Shore Line Electric Rail- way Co.,, ct al., application for order al- 1 lowing Robert w. Perkins receiver, e continue for four months from October IT, 1922, granted. MacFarIane vs Ra- gonese, ct al. disclosure of defense or judgment of foreclosure, postponed Ce- 1 la B. Perry ys Frank E. Perry, that de- ] fendant show cause why contenpt pro-
 
 him for failure to pay alimony and on failure thereof to be committed, post poned. Norwich Savings Society vs. The Ironside Board Corp, ct al, further order of notice, granted.
 | In Mrs Relyea's motion for alimony pendente lite from Wm. Henry Reiyes ! of New London, whom she $ suing foi l divorce on the ground of cruelty, Mrs Relyea testified that her husband has not supported her during the last three months and that she has no means oi !, support. She declared that She can no work because she has been forbidden tc by physicians.
 MT. Rclyea, through his attorney George c. Morgan, told the court tha he was only earning 25 a week
 Judge Newell ordered the defendan to pay his wife $9 a week beginning to day. Attorney Morris Lubchansky wa, counsel for the petitioner.
 Mrs. Mary Atwood of New London als, appeared before Judge Newell asking fo alimony pending a divorce action brough against her by her husband, Walter Au wood of New London, on the grounds o adultery She has a counter bill agains him alleging cruelty.
 She said that he husband left her oi Sept. 29, 1921, and that she has no received any support from him sine August 9, last. In the interim betweel his leaving her and August he had bee ordered by the city court to pay her $1 week which he paid for three month and later he was ordered to pay her : a week by the court of common pleas O . an appeal.
 Under cross examination Mrs. Auwoo said that she had two sons working, on was earning $27 a week and the othe $10.
 MT. Atwood testified that his wife ser him from the house on Sept 29, 192- Before that he used to give her all hi money every week and when he wante [ dollar or 50 cents he used to ask he c for it. He said he owned no propert, = had no money in the bank and only whs { he earned, wich was about $25 a. weel :, He said he rented thtee furnished room
 and that his 20-year old daughter live ? with him.
 Judge Jennings denied the motir :. without prejudice.