The Waterbury Democrat., 1945-12-19
Court Finds Case Error

tContinued from Page n however. that 1t could not consider the demurrer since the defendant later had filed an entirely new answer.
 The high court also calls atten- ton to the trial courts instructions to the jury on the duty resting on the landlord under common law and under mandatory provisions" of the statute to provide light. The decision states, the court repeat edly indicated to the jury that the former was one calling for the eX- ercise of reasonable case to provide light, while the latter involved an absolute duty to provide it. This instruction related to a vital issue in the case and constituted rever- Sible error
 Rule Argument Out
 Reference is made by the Supreme Court to arguments by the counsel for the plaintiff about the effects of Mrs. Falzone's death on her service manson. The high court terms the argument irrelevant and improper, but states the juriSt did not err in refusing to grant 8 mistrial because of the argument. It is pointed out that the iurist cautioned the jury to dismiss the reference about the sol dier from their minds.
 The case is expected to be entered again on the trial list, in accordance with an order by the high court for new trial.
 The landlords duty under the state statute is defined as follows by the high court: ito make provision for lighting railways in tenement houses at night and to use reason able care and diligence to keep the lights on."
 Tha decision in the bridge suit was made by Judge John H. King in the Litchfield Superior Court Jan. g. The litigation had been in- stituted by the Town of Watertown and the Town of Thomaston and Thomaston resident in an effort to compel the City of Waterbury to re- pdAl dllll lIlhlllldlll ullG AllSG W1llOAA crosses West Branch River on the dividing line between Watertown and Thomaston.
 The bridge had been constructed by the city over a portion of a reser- voir it established to furnish water to its inhabitants. The city, 1t is pointed out in the memorandum written by Chief Justice William M. Maltbie, was acting under special act of the Legislature empowering it to take lands and waters in Litchfield and New Haven counties for that purpose.
 Chief Justice Maltbie explained that the bridge is not now reason- ably safe for public travel, and that rebuilding would cost $l5,000.
 He states in part, Only two wit nesses appeared who made any present use of the new bridge; its discontinuance would not cause them or anyone else any material or substantial damage; and it is not necessary for use by the public"
 The decision further notes that the bridge was built with a view to the type of traffic common at the time of its construction and is not strong enough to accommodate the heavy traffic of the present day There was no evidence of any agree ment on the part of the defendant to repair the bridge for the use of the public"
 The high court concludes: "As the case stands before us, any person who passes over the bridge does so in the exercises of private, not a public right. The plaintiff towns cannot represent the interests of their individual inhabitants in the assertion of private rights.
 We must, in the decision of this case, accept the conclusion of the trial court that the individual plain tiff in using the bridge was a gratu- ious licensee. Any right he had as such was revocable at the will of the defendant. He had no such in- terest as would entitle him to com pei the defendant to make repairs to the bridge"
 Attorney J. Warren Upson ap- peared for the landlord in the Fal- zone case, while Attorney John H. Cassidy and Attorney Walter w. Smyth represented the plaintiff, who is administrator of his mothers estate.
 Corporation Counsel Maurice T. Healey and Assistant Corporation Counsel Edward J. Mcdonald ap- peared for the city in the bridge action. The plaintiffs were repre- sented by Attorneys John H. Cas- sidv and J. Howard Roberts.