Volume 44 — Connecticut Reports

Assumpsit for money paid; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court, on the general issue, before Robinson, J. Upon the trial it appeared that the defendant was the owner of certain land on Whalley Avenue in the city of New Haven, and exchanged the same with the plaintiff for certain other real estate; that at.the date of the exchange the avenue had been recently repaired, but no assessment liad been laid therefor upon tlie defendant’s…

Covenant, for a breach of the covenant of seizin; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court on the general issue before Stoddard, J-The court found the following facts: One Hitchcock was the owner in 1871 of a large tract of land in the city of New Haven bounding north on Foote street, four hundred and eiglity-three feet, and embracing the parcel in question in the present suit.

Bill in Equity, praying for the appointment of commissioners to complete a bridge which by an act of the General Assembly the respondent city and town were required to build; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. The following facts were found by the court: The General Assembly, at its session in 1872, passed an act, the parts of which material to the present case, are as follows: “ Sec. 1.

Assumpsit for goods sold; brought to tlie Court of Common Picas of Fairfield County, and by order of tlie court transferred, under the provisions of the statute, (Gen. Statutes, p. 415, sec. 13,) to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to tlie jury in that court before Robinson, J. Verdict for tlie plaintiff and motion in error by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The appellant was a devisee and legatee under the will. The case was tried to the jury, on the issue of the soundness or unsoundness of the mind of the testatrix, before Sanford, J. After the evidence on both sides had been introduced, one of the counsel for the appellant, while making the opening argument, proposed to read to the jury from the decisions of courts in this country and in England, where wills had been sustained notwithstanding the objections which had been…

Petition for an injunction, to restrain the respondent from making certain use of leased premises in violation of the terms of the lease; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. Pacts found by a committee and petition dismissed by Sanford, J. Motion in error by the petitioner. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Action upon the statute (Gen. Statutes, p. 314, sec. 3,) to enforce a personal liability of the defendants as directors of a joint-stoclc corporation for a debt of the company; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court upon the general issue before Robinson, J. Upon the trial the plaintiffs claimed, and offered evidence to prove, that the Now England Gas Carbonizing Company was organized under the provisions of the act in reference to…

Scire Facias, against the defendant as a garnishee; brought before a justice of the peace, and appealed by the plaintiffs to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried in that court on the general issue, closed to the court, before Peek, J. Judgment rendered for the defendant and motion for a new trial by the plaintiffs. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Petition for advice as to the construction and effect of certain provisions in the will of Susan Trowbridge,' and as to the duties of the petitioner as surviving trustee of certain property under the will; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and reserved on facts found for the advice of this court. The respondents were heirs at law of the testatrix. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Amicable submission upon an agreed statement of facts; made to the Superior Court in New Haven County.

Assumpsit upon a policy, of life insurance; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Ilavon County, and tried to the jury, on the general issue, before Robinson, J. The policy was dated May 9tli, 1873, and was upon the life of George T. Lillie for the sum of $1,000, payable at the age of thirty-eight, the assured then being twenty-eight years of age; the amount being payable to his mother, one of the plaintiffs, in case of his death before reaching that age.

Four actions of covenant upon receipts given to officers for property attached; brought to the City Court of tlie city of Now Haven, and tried to the court upon the general issue before Stoddard, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs, and motions in error by the several defendants. The cases are fully stated in the opinion.

Covenant ; brought to tlio Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County.

Amicable Submission to the Superior Court upon an agreed statement of facts; reserved for the advice of this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Bill for an injunction against the sale of certain real estate under a resolution of the General Assembly; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County.

Case, for an injury from a defective sidewalk of the defendant city; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court, on the general issue, before Peck, Acting Judge. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and motion in error by defendants. The case is sufficiently stated in thé opinion.

Assumpsit for money lent; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court, on the general issue, before Stoddard, J. The plaintiff sued as conservator of one Henry R. Johnson, by whom, while the plaintiff was conservator, the money had been lent. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant brought the record before this court by a motion in error.

Trespass qu. cl. fr.; brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County, and tried to the court on the general issue and a special plea of title, before Stoddard, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and motion for a new trial by the plaintiff. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Bill to foreclose a mortgage of real estate; brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County. Facts found by a committee and’ a decree of foreclosure passed by Martin, J. Motion in error by Lois Scott, one of the respondents. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.

Trespass de lonis asjportatis; brought to the District Court of Litchfield County, and tried to the court, on the general issue, with notice that the defendant claimed to be the owner of the property, before Foster, J. Judgment for the plaintiff and motion for a new trial by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Trespass for taking and carrying away a horse belonging to the plaintiffs; brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County, and tried to the court, on the general issue with notice, before Martin, J. The court found the following facts: In April, 1871, the plaintiffs agreed with the defendant to purchase of him the horse described in the declaration, for §150, payable within thirty days thereafter.

Replevin for a horse attached as the property of the plaintiff in his individual capacity; brought by the plaintiff as trustee tor his wife; reserved, by the Superior Court, on facts found by a committee, for the advice of this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

<p>Where facts found are strong evidence of fraud, hut do not necessarily prove it, this court can not, as a matter of law, infer fraud. The question is one of fact to be decided as such by the court below.</p>

<p>Information for keeping and selling intoxicating liquors; brought by appeal from the City Court of the city of Bridgeport to the Superior Court for Fairfield County, and tried to the jury, on the plea of not guilty, before Culver, J. Verdict guilty, and motion in arrest of judgment for the insufficiency of the information. This motion being overruled, the defendant filed a motion in error and for a new trial. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Upon an indictment for rape the testimony of the woman upon whom the offence was committed may he confirmed by evidence that she had told the same story out of court; and this evidence is not limited to the mere fact of her having made such a statement, but may extend to the particulars of it.</p>

<p>Special Assumpsit for breach of a contract to employ the plaintiff as a school-teacher, with a count in general assumpsit for services rendered; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County, and tried to the jury on the general issue, with notice, before Hitchcoelc, J. Yerdict for the defendants, and motion for a new trial by the plaintiff for error in the rulings of the court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

Debt on a bond; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County, and tried to the court on a general denial, before jBeardsley, J. Judgment for the plaintiffs and motion for a new trial by the defendant Keeler, for error in the admission of evidence. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

<p>Trespass de honis asportatis, with a count .in trover; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County, and tried to the court (.Hitchcock, J.) on the general issue, with notice that the property was taken as the property of the plaintiff by an officer upon an attachment in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff. The suit was brought by the plaintiff as trustee for his wife Catherine Becker. The court found the following facts:—</p> <p>On the lltli of November, 1873, the defendant prayed out a writ of attachment against Charles Becker, the present plaintiff, demanding $100 damages, returnable before a justice of the peace of Bridgeport, and on the 12th of November put the same into the hands of Seymour Whiting, a sheriff of the city of Bridgeport, directing him to attach all the personal property contained in certain rooms belonging to the defendant, and hired of him by said Charles Becker, and used by him for a saloon; for the rent of which the suit was brought. The sheriff thereupon attached all the personal property in the saloon, the attachment being made on the 18th of November.</p> <p>Among the articles thus attached was a musical instrument called an orchestrion, which was the property of Catherine Becker, wife of said Charles, who bought it of Wallenbarger & Gaunter, of New York, for $1,400, and mortgaged it back to that firm to secure the payment of an unpaid part of the purchase price; on which mortgage there was duo at the time of the attachment the sum of $575, for which the firm held the individual notes of said Catherine, she having paid from her own money all of the price except said balance of $575.</p> <p>The sheriff on attaching the property immediately took possession of the orchestrion and other personal property, together with the saloon, by direction of the defendant, excluded said Charles therefrom, and afterwards held possession and control of the same as against said Charles and Catherine Becker.</p> <p>On the 14th of November, 1873, the sheriff left a copy of the writ with said Charles in service; and in his return on the writ, and in his endorsement on the copy, certified that he had attached the orchestrion by virtue of the writ.</p> <p>Between one and two o’clock in the afternoon of the 14th of November, and after the copy of the writ had been left in service with said Charles Becker, a fire broke out in the upper part of the building in which the saloon was situated. Water, in large quantity, thrown by the firemen to extinguish the fire, came down into the saloon, and to some degree upon the orchestrion.</p> <p>The defendant, the sheriff, and said Charles were all at the fire. Before any water had come through upon the orchestrion, and before it had received any injury, said Charles applied in good faith to the defendant, to be allowed to remove it to a place of safety, and could have so removed it; but tlie defendant forbade him to do so, and said that nothing should be taken from the saloon. Tbo said Charles also applied to the sheriff for permission to remove the orchestrion, but he also refused to let him do so.</p> <p>The day after the fire, one of the mortgagees of the orchestrion applied to the defendant and to the sheriff for permission to remove it to a dry place, the instrument then being in a bad condition, but neither of them would allow it to be done.</p> <p>While the fire was raging, and water was running down into the saloon and upon the instrument, said Charles procured cloth of some description, and applied to the sheriff to place the same over the orchestrion, which was done, but it afforded but a very imperfect protection from the water; and the instrument was in no way properly protected from the water by the defendant and the sheriff, who held possession and control of the same and of the saloon, though with reasonable effort it might have been removed from the saloon to a place of safety, or protected there.</p> <p>The said Charles and Catherine Becker gave no further attention to the instrument. It remained in the saloon for a considerable time after the fire, and was nearly if not totally ruined. This damage was produced in part by the water running down upon it at the time of the fire, and by its being afterwards kept in a bad condition, damp and unprotected in the saloon.</p> <p>None of the property attached by the sheriff is found by the court to have been the property of said Catherine except the orchestrion.</p> <p>At the time of the fire and before the instrument was injured, it could have been removed to a place of safety without material damage, though it was somewhat bulky.</p> <p>At the time of the attachment the instrument was worth §1,400, and said Catherine had paid for it in full, except a balance of §575.</p> <p>Proceedings to replevy the instrument, and some other property attached^ as being said Catherine’s property, at the time tlie fire occurred, were pending, and negotiations for some arrangement between the parties were going on, which might have been successful but for the fire.</p> <p>At the time of the attachment and fire neither the defendant nor the sheriff knew that the orchestrion was the property of said Catherine, nor that Wallenbarger & Gaunter had any mortgage on it; nor did they take any means of acquiring knowledge on that subject.</p> <p>Some time after the fire, and after great damage had been done to the orchestrion, the sheriff met said Charles on the street, and informed him that he relinquished the attachment on the instrument. The sheriff kept the saloon locked, and gave said Charles no permission, opportunity or facility for entering the same, but held control and possession of the saloon and of the instrument himself,. and merely informed him that he relinquished the attachment on the orchestrion.</p> <p>The defendant claimed that on these facts the law was so that if he ivas liable at all, it was for such injury only as occurred to the orchestrion during the fire and up to the time of relinquishing the attachment by the sheriff. He also claimed that he had a legal right to presume that after the fire the plaintiff would pursue his action to replevy the orchestrion ; and that he was not holden for such care regarding it as ho might have been under different' circumstances; and that the instrument could not have been greatly injured from the time of the fire till the attachment was relinquished. He also claimed that after the- attachment was relinquished the orchestrion remained in the saloon at the l’isk of the plaintiff. The court held that the law was not so, and decided adversely to these claims of the defendant.</p> <p>The plaintiff claimed that as trustee of said Catherine he was in this suit entitled to recover the full value of the orchestrion and interest from the date of its attachment. But the court decided adversely to this claim, deducted the amount due on the mortgage to Wallenbarger & Gaunter, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff as such trustee to recover of the defendant the sum of $827, with interest on that sum from the 13th of November, 1873, and costs of suit.</p> <p>The defendant moved for a new trial, for error of the court in its rulings upon the claims made by him as above. The plaintiff also filed a motion in error, assigning as error the ruling of the court that the amount due on the mortgage should be deducted from the value of the orchestrion in fixing the damages.</p>

<p>Uhder the statute with regard to replevin, previous to the Revision of 1875, that action would not lie to recover property held hy an officer upon an execution.</p> <p>And, under the same principle, it would not lie to recover property taken by a tax collector upon a tax warrant.</p> <p>While an action of replevin so brought was pending, the act (Rev. of 1875, tit. 19, part 15, sec. 1,) was passed, which provides that “replevin may be maintained to recover any goods or chattels wrongfully detained, &c.” Held not to be retroactive, and therefore not applicable to an action of replevin then pending.</p> <p>And held that the word “maintained” did not necessarily imply that the statute was to operate on suits already brought.</p> <p>A statute should never be held to be retroactive unless such a construction is required by an express provision or by unavoidable implication.</p> <p>The statute requires that if judgment be rendered for the defendant in replevin, it shall be for a return of the property and for costs. A judgment was rendered for a defendant for costs only. Held that the plaintiff was not aggrieved by the error and could not take advantage of it.</p>

<p>Application for a writ of mandamus; brought to the Superior Court in. Pairfield County. Motion by respondents to quash the application, and case reserved upon this motion for the advice of this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.</p>

Assumpsit for goods sold; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, and tried to the court, on the general issue, with notice, before McManus, J. Judgment for the plaintiffs and motion for a new trial by the defendants. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Petition for an injunction against tlie collection of a judgment at law obtained by tlie respondent against tlie plaintiff; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County.

Scire Facias, upon a process of foreign attachment; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Raven County.

Assumpsit for money had and received; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County and tried to the court on the general issue before Stoddard, J. Pacts found and judgment rendered for the defendants, and motion in error by the plaintiff. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit for supplies furnished to certain paupers, claimed to belong to the defendant town; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the jury-on the general issue before Robinson, J. Upon the trial the plaintiffs offered evidence of the following notice sent by the selectmen of the town of Beacon Falls to those of the town of Seymour: “Selectmen of the Town of Seymour, Conn.: We hereby give you notice that Newell J. Warner and his wife Eunice…

Assumpsit, to recover tlie price of a bust made for tlie defendant; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court on the general issue, before Robinson, J. The court made the following finding of facts: The plaintiff in March, 1875, was a sculptor by profession, and particularly devoted himself to modeling in plaster, from photographs, the busts of deceased persons.

Assumpsit for money paid for the defendant and upon am. account stated, held by the plaintiff by assignment; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried to the • court on the general issue, before Martin, J. Pacts found., and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and motion for a new trial by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit for commissions on the sale of real estate; brought to the City Court of the city of New Haven. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of a set-off, upon which the whole question in the case arose. The court found the following facts.

Debt on a recognizance as special bail for one Charles 0. Dolph; brought by appeal from a justice of the peace to the Court of Common Pleas for New Haven County, and tried to the court, on the general issue with notice, before Stoddard, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and motion for a new trial by the plaintiff. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Petition for an injunction, to restrain the respondent city from injuring the land of the petitioner by making excavations and fillings in working a public street upon which the land abutted; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. . A temporary injunction was granted at the time the suit was brought. The following facts were found by the court: The petitioner owns and occupies the land described in his petition.

Bill in equity for an injunction and to set aside a deed of certain cliurch property; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County, and reserved, upon facts found, for the advice of this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit upon a contract to deliver a phaeton to one Boyce, by whom the contract was assigned to the plaintiff; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County, and tried to the court, on the general issue with notice, before McManus, J. The court made the following finding of facts: On the 20th of October, 1868, one Boyce, a dealer in patent rights, and a resident of the state of New York, called on ■ Whiton, the defendant, who was a carriage maker residing in…

Writ of Error to reverse a judgment of a justice of the peace; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County, which ([McManus, J.,~) affirmed the judgment, and by motion in error from that judgment brought to this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Trespass for taking and carrying away a quantity of clocks; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County. The case was tried to the court upon the general issue, with notice that the defendants would show that the clocks were attached as the property of one Charles Lewis, by the defendant Eoley, as a deputy sheriff, upon a writ in favor of the defendant Wooding, in a suit against the said Lewis.

Covenant, -upon a receipt given for attached property; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford, and tried on an issue closed to the court. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and motion in error by the plaintiff. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.

Scire Facias, brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County, under the statute (Gen. Statutes, tit. 16, part 1, cliap. 7, sec. 21,) -which provides that “every driver of any vehicle who shall, by neglecting to conform to the preceding section, [requiring him to turn to the right on meeting any other vehicle upon the public highway,] drive against another vehicle and injure its owner or any person in it or the property of any person, * * * shall pay to the party…

Debt, for tlie recovery of usurious interest claimed to have been received of the plaintiffs by the defendants; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and tried to the court on the general issue before Granger, J. The court found the following facts:— The following note was executed, at the time it bears date, by the plaintiffs, who were then, and are still, husband and wife. “112,000. “Hartford, Sept. 21st, 1872. “On demand we promise to pay to the order of the…

Assumpsit, brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County, and reserved for the advice of this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Covenant, for breach of a covenant against incumbrances, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County.

<p>Application for a mandamus; brought to the Superior Court, and reserved, upon facts found, for the advice of this court. The points of law decided will be sufficiently understood from the opinion, without a statement of the facts.</p>

Bill in equity, for the reformation of a mortgage deed and for a foreclosure; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County.

Bill in equity, to set aside a contract and for an injunction against certain proceedings in the settlement of an estate ; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and heard before Sanford, J. The court found the following facts: The petitioner is a nephew and heir-at-law of Charles W. Hart, late of New Britain.

Assumpsit, to recover brokerage; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford, and tried to the court on the general issue before Sumner, J. The court found the following facts and made them a part of the record.

Assumpsit for money received to the plaintiff’s use; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County and tried to the court on the general issue, before McManus, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and motion in error by the defendant. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

■ Bill for a foreclosure; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford, and heard before Sumner, J. The bill alleged that Samuel Hubbard on the 28th of January, 1875, mortgaged to the petitioner a certain piece of land in the city of Hartford, subject to a mortgage to one Montgomery, and eleven other pieces also in Hartford, free from encumbrance, to secure a note of $6,000; that Montgomery at the March term, 1875, of the Superior Court, obtained a decree of foreclosure…

Bills to foreclose liens for work done and materials furnished in erecting and repairing certain buildings; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford. The cases involving essentially the same facts were tried together. The following facts were found by the court.

Trespass for throwing down a fence upon land of the plaintiffs, brought under Gen. Statutes, p. 489, sec. 5, and appealed from the judgment of a justice of the peace to the Court of Common Pleas for Hartford County. In the latter court (McManus, J.,~) the facts were found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and a motion in error to this court filed by the plaintiffs. The case is fully stated in the opipion.

Amicable submission to the Superior Court iu Hartford County upon the following agreed statement of facts. Held: being 1401 acres, is not necessary for the construction or use of the reservoirs, and is of the value of two thousand dollars. This land was bought with other land used for the water works, and because the whole could be bought at a better rate than a part.

Debt on a replevin bond; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford.

Writ op Error to tliis court from a judgment of the Superior Court in issuing a peremptory mandamus. The proceeding upon which the mandamus was issued is fully stated in the report of the case of The State of Connecticut v. The New Haven f Northampton Company, 43 Conn. R., 351.

Writ op error from a judgment of the Superior Court adjudging the plaintiffs in error guilty of contempt and ordering them imprisoned.

Petition for an injunction to restrain the respondents, as State’s Attorney and Clerk of the Superior Court, the one from praying out and the other from issuing any process for the execution of an order of the court for the commitment of the petitioners for a contempt in disobeying a peremptory writ of mandamus issued by the court; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and reserved, upon a demurrer to the petition, for the advice of this court.

Assumpsit for money had and received; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, and tried to the jury on the general issue, with notice of a former adjudication of the same matter between the parties, before DeForest, J. Yerdict for the plaintiff, and motion for a new trial by the defendant for error in the rulings and charge of the court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit, upon an acceptance of an order; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County, and tried to the court, before Beardsley, J. Judgment for the defendant, and motion for a new trial by the plaintiffs. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit, upon a guarantee of the performance by a lessee of his covenants in a lease; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County, and tried to the jury, upon the general issue with notice, before Beardsley, J. Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence a written lease made by himself to one Charles E. Griffing and the guarantee of the defendant thereon, with evidence of the due execution of the same, and also evidence to prove that upon the execution of the…

Assumpsit for goods sold to the defendant’s intestate; brought, by appeal from a justice of the peace, to the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County, and tried to the court, on the general issue, with notice of a claim that the demand was barred by non-presentation within the time limited by the court of probate, before Be Forest, J. The court found the following facts: The defendant on the 25th day of September, 1875, was appointed administrator on the estate of his…

Bill in Equity to set aside a conveyance and remove a cloud from the petitioner’s title; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County. Harriet A. Trubee, the principal respondent, filed a cross-bill praying that the deed of the same property to the petitioner might be set aside as a cloud upon her own title.

Debt on a probate bond; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County, and tried to the court before Beardsley, J. Judgment for the defendants, and motion for a new trial by the plaintiff for error in the rulings of the court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Debt on a recognizance upon a writ of replevin; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County. The case was tried to the court, on the- general issue, before JDe Forest, J. On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence, to prove the taking of the recognizance of the defendants, the original writ of replevin in which the recognizance was claimed to have been taken.

Assumpsit to recover a tax claimed to liave been illegally assessed; brought by appeal from a justice of the peace to the Superior Court in Windham County. Pacts found and case reserved for advice. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Debt on a bond for the performance of an award; brought to the Superior Court in Windham County, and tried to the jury on the general issue, before Carpenter, J. On the trial it appeared that the plaintiff and one James Farrell, previous to the 22d day of January, 1876, had had a controversy with regard to a claim of the plaintiff that the said Farrell was indebted to him, and that on that day they submitted the matter to arbitration by the following written submission:…

<p>The heirs at law of a testatrix contested her will on the ground that she was of unsound mind and unduly influenced. The party claiming under the will offered in evidence, for the purpose of showing on the part of the testatrix an actual dislike of the heirs at law and a determination to give them nothing, certain declarations made by her to that effect, among which were several as ' to the lewd character of the wife of one of them. Held that, for the purpose of showing that she was under a mental delusion, evidence was admissible that the character of the woman in question was perfectly good.</p> <p>And held that the fact that counsel for the heirs at law, at the close of the trial before the jury, abandoned the claim that the testatrix was of unsound mind, was not a sufficient reason for refusing to grant a new trial for the error of the court in excluding evidence previously offered by them to prove such unsoundness.</p> <p>The heirs at law were allowed to prove certain declarations of the testatrix to the effect that the father of the party claiming under the will had induced her to come to his house to reside and had prevented her from returning by threats. Held that evidence was admissible on the part of the party claiming under the will, that these statements were not true.</p>

Replevin for articles of personal property attacked by the defendant. The action was brought to the Court of Common Pleas for New London County and tried before Mather, J., who rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The court made the following finding of facts: In May, 1874, the plaintiff loaned $100 to Benjamin P. Hewitt, who was his son-in-law, and took his note for the amount.

Writ of error from a judgment of the Superior Court in Windham County. The original action, which was brought by the defendant in error, was assumpsit on a note, and was tried to the court before Carpenter, J. The note was for $1,650, was dated July 31,1873, and was payable in three years, with interest payable quarterly at the rate of seven per cent, per annum. The defendant pleaded the general issue with notice of usury.

Case for an injury to the property of the plaintiff by the negligence of the defendants, who were trustees,' of the Hartford, Providence & Fishkill Railroad, and as such were operating the road; brought to the Superior Court in'New London County. The defendants suffered a default and the. case was heard in damages.

Petition to the Superior Court in Hartford County for advice as to certain questions arising under the will and in the settlement of the estate of Betsey Hanchett. The petitioner was administrator with the will annexed. The testatrix resided at Suffield, in this state.

Replevin for a liorse and wagon; brought to the Court of Common Pleas for Hartford County, and tried to the court before McManus, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendants, and motion in error by the plaintiff. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Petition for an injunction to restrain the respondent from digging up water pipes laid under a highway by the selectmen of the petitioners and from filling up an excavation made by them by the side of the highway; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County.

Action on the case for fraud in releasing a mortgage to •which the'plaintiff was equitably entitled; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and tried to the jury on the general issue before Beardsley, J. Upon the trial 'it became a material question whether a certain mortgage executed by the plaintiff to the defendant, had ever been legally delivered to the latter.

Assumpsit, brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford, and tried to the court before Sumner, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. Motion in error by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Information for manslaughter; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and tried to the jury, on the plea of not guilty, before HitcheocJe, J. Yerdict guilty, and motion for a new trial for error in the charge of the court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit for work done; brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County. The following facts were found by a committee. The plaintiff in May, 1873, moved a building for the defendant, with no agreement as to the price to be paid him, but his services were worth 1325. The defendant had an account against the plaintiff of $156.86 for certain ferriages of the plaintiff and his teams and men.

Libel of a quantity of coal, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, heard before Shipman, J., at the February term, 1877. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

<p>Trover, United States Circuit Court, District of Connecticut, April term, 1877. The case is fully stated in the opinion.</p>

Assumpsit, brought to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and heard before Shipman, J., at the May term, 1877. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Action at law by the plaintiff, as receiver of a' national bank, against the defendant as ádministrator of a stockholder of the bank, to recover the amount of an assessment for the payment of the debts of the bank; brought to the United States District Court of the district of Connecticut, and heard before Shipman, J., at the November term, 1877. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Action at law by the plaintiff as receiver of a national bank against the defendants as a stockholder, to recover the amount of an assessment for the debts of the bank; brought to the United States District Court of the district of Connecticut, and heard before Shipman, Jat the November term, 1877. The case is fully stated in-the opinion.

S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting in bankruptcy; heard in chambers,^February 11th, 1878; being an application of the assignee of tlie-estate of 'Matthew M. Merriman, bankrupt, to have the proof of a claim by the American National Bank expunged. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Information in the nature of. a quo warranto ; filed in the Superior Court in Hartford County, and heard on the 29th day of April, 1878, before Hovey, J. The case is fully stated in the opinion.