Norwich bulletin., 1922-05-20
SHORT CALENDAR DAY FOR
 MAI sRssI0NS .0F. G0E

The following matters on the short cal endar list were disposed of: 1 Town of Grotons ct al. ys. eGrotonsIron i Works, ct al. 1 Judgment ? Order for 1 foreclouse by sale Appointment of
 appraisers. postponed.
 Blankenfeld vs. Charratz Argument
 of motion to join new party plaintiff, ] postponed.
 Mary DaRko o~vs. John Danko. That de-
 fendant show cause why he should not be cQmni ted for. contempt, postpouedr
 zezu1ewicz vs. Rokowskt Bond for
 prosecution. $75 in two weeks 1 Selikowiteh vs Connecticut Mortgage
 & Title: Guaranty Co., ct al. Argument
 of demurrer of Connecticut Mortgage & l Title Guaranty CO, postponed. l Edward Paul vH Mary Paul. Second l order of notice ordered.
 l Cairns, Adnx vs Barrows. ct al. Il !, Argument of demurrer Of Standard Ga | rage Co. Argument of demurrer of Henry-D. Barrows, judge took the pa
 pers !s i oNeil, ct al. .vs. sGeary, Appeal. from Probate. l Motion for acceptance of re-
 port of committee. 2 Judgment, post poned
 Redden. ct al. vs Sullivan; ct a1 : i
 Acceptance of report of committee of
 sale, accepted. ? Approval of deed, ap- proved. Supplemental judgment, post poned committee allowed $500. ~ Hillhouse, ct al ys. Duca, ct al Mo 1 tion that order adiourning case on ac- count of defendants, Giosue Duca ana
 Agestino DiNoto being non residents, be
 erased, terminated.
 Storrs. TT. vs. Metzendorf, ct al. Motion
 for judgment, postponed.
 Groton Iron Works vs.. P. Schwartz :. naTo q, , CT in. two weeks t
 Sarah Kane James vs Ray Clinton
 Janes. Answer or that case be placed on { { uneentested list. answer in. two weeks Chapman vs, Cruttenden, ct al. De fault for failure to answer, plesdings in one week
 Piedmont Mt. Airy Guano O. vs.
 Marsland, ct al. Order of notice. Con- thus nee. for three months. Hendel -vs Ducy, ct al Default for failure to answeA pleading in two weeks. Schmidt ct al ys. Reynolds. | Disclo- . sure of defense. ? Default for failure f to plead, postponed.
 .Loraas & NettIeton. TT. vs. oddo, ct ? a. Disclosure of defense or judgment 9 no defense Default for failure to an- . sHa~. postponed.
 I Schmidt. ct al. ys. Reynolds, ct al. 1
 Disclosure of defense 2 Default for
 failure to plead. postponed. l Saunders vs. Silveira, ct al. 1 Dis closure of defense. no defense. ? JudE- 6 ment by default. as to amount 3 Fore. n closure and limitation. S Peters vs. Keisker. Default for failure :; to plead, answer in two weeks. : Ghidella vs Crocicchia Disclosure o t defense or judgment, postponed. ( American Railway Express Co. vs ' ! A t murrer. postponed }. Perkins Receiver vg. Levinson. ct al . Argument of demurrer of Maryland Gas ualty Co, postponed. i' Standard Oil Co. of N. r. vs I.ubow = R-fsu.t for failure to plead, answer 1T f two weeks
 ! PennAua ct al. vs. Twomey. Defaul n for failure to plead, answer in tw' Il weeks
 ockooneff vs Noble. Disclosure of de il f2n=e or judgment. postponed. < Shay vs. Mantle Menhaden Oil e Guano Co. Hearing on receivers semi
 annual statement as of April i. 1922 s, postpor ed.
 La Po.nte vs U s, Electric O.. e
 al. Disclosure. of defense Or judgment | receiver. no defense, postponed for mdg I ment
 r. washburn & Rogers. Inc. vs. storinI n & Leasing Co. That case be restored | s docket restored.
 0! New London City National Bank vs
 Caracauss. ct al. 1 Disclosure 2 Judg Q, ment. postponed. alI New England Steamship Co. vs. shi d Construction 6 Trading Co, Inc Juds .- ment in accordance with stipulation ,f Judgment for $7oo.o2 and $s1.s2 costs. o New York New Haven $ Hartfor ,r Railroad Co. vs. Ship Construction -
 Trading O.. Inc. Judgment for $1
 245.o2 and $61.32 costs.
 New England Steamship Co. vs. shi E Constrution Trading Co., Inc i Dil 4 closure of defense. ? Judgment. stip, s lation filed judgment for &-,ss3.34 an Tn s53.25 costs
 J. New York. New Haven & Hartfor he Railroad Co. vs. Ship Construction If Trading Co., Inc. 1 Disclosure of d fense. Judgment stipulation file ne judgment for S2.soo.s4 and s53.25 cost ns Barnes vs. Mystic Valley Creamery c *- l Approval of receivers semi-annual a re count. postponed by Fannie R. Johnson vs. Frederick tie Johnson. Second order of notice. orde Is, ed
 en Olaf. IT, vs. Andrews Hearing el- petition for new trial, off. ec- Natzel vs. Huntington. Answer or q -oA l2ult, answer Tn two weeks. lss Dunlop vs. Allen Spool & Wood Tur or ing Go. 1 Disclosure of defense. if an llo Limitation of tyre in which to plea rai answer in two weeks. ng Rose l.. Mansfield vs. Frank x Mar v field. That defendant be held In co 1.s tempt for failure to comply with ord ltn as to alirnony pendente lite off au' Anna Schrarrm Schnelien vs. Jac .ss Schn ellen. Alinony pendente lite, pol hu poned
 ers Moskowitch vs Avery. ct al Co ..iu ,.t tinuanee, 3 months Further order nt notice postponed '..p Storrs, TT. vs.S Metzendorf ct al N md md tion to open default, postponed. on- Gillette vs. Town of Lyme. App ,n. from Probate. Judgment by default 1 ,s1 want of answer. postponed. lba Anna Dennison vs. Isaac Kirmane sv- al. Judgment of foreclouse ahd linnit h,s tions of time to redeem granted f va sf.2o241 redemption limit first Tu ec, day in June
 dfSFrancesca, ct al vs. Amantfa. Adm vho ct al. Approval. of receivers seni-s red nualt statement accepted and approv md Jones, ct al. vs. U. S. Electric ( fire Permission to bring suie for forecfcsl .rs. against the receiver of the United Sta the Electric O., granted. ted Bertha C. Latham svs.s Charles E.. I nes than. Hearing on motion of June i'll" 1921. that the order of the court eat, payment of alimony oendenfe lite be ere cated. postponed ? That answer be fl us to amend crosse complaint answer in | yes weeks
 ron Grinnel Co vs. Koib Carton Co.,, I