The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-01-05

Approved OF the technical issue
Of the court would In effect termi-
nate the lengthy proceedings which
resulted from the children's effort
to break their fathers viii and
gain his $4,000 estate.
A hearing on the estates motion
fled by Attorney John H. Cassidy
for the Wills executor, Lawrence l.
Lewis, viii be conducted at the reg
ular short calendar session Of the
court Friday morning before Judge
Frank p. McEvoy, who also presided
at the original win hearing.
Also entered on the same short
calendar docket Is another suit in
volving the Atchison family, a di-
vorce action brought against the
late Middlebury residents oldest
son, Lawrence Atchison, Jr. The
plaintiff, Marion Senchuk Atchi-
son Of Middlebury, win be repre-
sented by Attorney Lewis at the
hearing Of the case, which her
husband will not contest.
The estate claims the two appel
lants' signatures on their original
appeal from probate court has nc
legal effect because they are minors
1t Is pointed out that the appeal
was not taken by a guardian or any
person Of full legal age. The chill
dren entered as principals on the
bond necessary for the appeal like
wise, the estate states, claiming also
that the bond was insufficient. 1t
concludes that since the appeal was
not taken legally the superior court
acquired no jurisdiction and that
the case should be dismissed.
Also set for hearing Friday Is
the children's motion for an extern
sion Of time to perfect their appeal
to the State Supreme Court OF Err
rors in Hartford. They request the
court to give them a months time
beyond q decision on three special
motions which are now pending be-
fore the high court.
The two minors won a jurys YER
dict last April 8 but on Nov. Judge
McEvoy set 1t aside ON the ground
the jury was ruled by prejudices
and sympathies for the children.
They then instituted an appeal to
the Hartford court, meanwhile ask
ing a court order requiring the es-
tate or the State Of Connecticut to
furnish them with funds to continue
their fight.
Judge McEvoy ordered the estate
to pay $3.50 for the chlldren's coun-
sci fees following a hearing on their
request and the executor appealed
TO the supreme court from this or
der. In his decision the jurist
stated he had no right to authorize
payment OF the children's other ex-
penses by either the estate or the
state. and the children filed a spe-
cial appeal to the high court on that
denial. They requested sharing Of
expenses in printing the transcript
Of evidence in the lengthy case and
also to be excused from furnishing
a bond on their appeal.
Each Of the appellants was be-
queathed $i0O. The third son also
was left a similar sum but he did
not appeal. testifying at the hearing
that he Is able to support himself.
The sum Of $500 was left to George
eastman. a close friend Of the
father, and the remainder Of the
estate went to Edwin Atchison, a
brother Of the deceased.
A divorce action involving their
parents was said by the appellant
children to be the root of their
financial troubles. They claimed
their father became prejudiced
against them since their mother d.
vorced him. in 1885. and conse-
emily penalized them when he drew
up his will.
The divorce action brought against
their brother Is based on charges
OF cruelty. The petitioner claims
her husband has been cruel since
the day Of marriage. August II.
1910. She seeks custody Of q minor
child and ailmony.
The two minor children mean
while are each receiving SIS month.
ly from the estate for support by
order Of the probate court. The
support payments which started a
few months ago are reported to have
been made retroactive to the time
OF the death Of their father on
October II, 1912, thus also invoiv-
ing a lump sum payment Of $1,000.
Mrs. Marion Atchison. mother Of
the appellants. was named guard
Ian ad Item by Judge McEvoy in
his decision on the children's mo-
ton December 20. She also had
been serving as guardian by order
OF probate court but did not enter
the superior court proceedings.
Attorneys Michael v. Blansfield
and Harry Albert will aDnear for the