Volume 79 — Connecticut Reports

<p>Section 2658 of the General Statutes provides that any person whose license to sell spirituous and intoxicating liquors shall he revoked by the county commissioners may appeal to the Superior Court. Held that the right of appeal thus given was limited to cases in which the question of revocation was brought before, heard and decided by, the county commissioners, and did not extend to a licensee whose license was forfeited hy operation of law upon his conviction hy a court, as prescribed by § 2677 and chapter 99 of the Public Acts of 1903. Upon such conviction the county commissioners are commanded to revoke the license, but are not required to hold any hearing, or to call for or receive any objections from the licensee, although they may do so if they see fit. If, in attempting to follow this mandate, they invade any legal rights of the licensee, his remedy is through the well-established methods of procedure, and not by means of this special, informal and limited process of “ appeal.” (Two judges dissenting).</p>

<p>A labor union has no right to threaten to injure or destroy the business of a person who is under no obligation to it, contractual or otherwise; and money demanded by and paid to the union as the price of its forbearance to execute such threats is illegally exacted and may be recovered by suit.</p> <p>The plaintiff, a brickmaker, sold brick to a boss-mason who employed non-union men. Thereupon the defendant, a labor union, undertook to fine or penalize him in the sum of $100, although he was not a member of the union or under any obligation to it, contract ual or otherwise. Subsequently the plaintiff began to furnish brick to a boss-mason who employed union help, and the defendant then threatened to withdraw its men from the job and forbid them to handle any of the plaintiff’s brick unless he paid said sum to the union. It was within the power of the defendant to carry out these threats, to the plaintiff's serious injury, and accordingly he yielded and paid the money, and afterward sued to recover it. Held that the defendant’s conduct was an act of pure extortion, and in violation of our statute, § 1296, as well as of the universally accepted principles of the common law, and that the union could not retain the money so exacted.</p>

Action on contract against a nonresident, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County by process of foreign attachment, the garnishee being a citizen of Hartford. By order of court, Ooats, J., the cause was stricken from the docket. The original service of process in the action was only by leaving a true and attested copy of the writ with the garnishee.

Action in the nature of trover for live stock and farm produce, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Coats, J.; verdict and judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff for alleged errors in the charge of the court.

Action by a wife against her husband to recover the amount of a promissory note given by him to her, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County where the defendant filed a plea in abatement upon the ground of coverture, to which the plaintiff demurred; the court, Reed, J., overruled the demurrer, whereupon the plaintiff answered, alleging a marriage between the parties subsequent to April 20th, 1877; a demurrer to this answer was sustained (Ralph Wheeler, J.') and…

Shit to foreclose a lien for a sewer assessment, brought to and tried by the City Court of Hartford, MeKone, Acting-Judge, upon demurrer to the answer; judgment pro forma .for defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to and heard in damages by the Superior Court in Litchfield County, Gager, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for plaintiff, and appeal by defendant.

Petition to the Superior Court in Fairfield County for a hearing as to the petitioner’s qualifications for admission to the bar. An order of notice to the Fairfield County Bar was made by the court, and on the application of the State’s Attorney an Assistant State’s Attorney was appointed under General Statutes, § 472, “to aid in the prosecution and hearing of ” the cause.

<p>The defendant agreed that upon the expiration of his five-year contract to collect the garbage of the city of Waterbury and dispose of it by cremation, he would convey to the city the plant used for that purpose, “including the crematory, buildings, wagons, or other appurtenances thereto, excepting horses and harness, and the land on which the plant shall be situated.” Held that the city was not entitled to a transfer of personal property which formed no part of the plant and had been used in connection therewith only occasionally and then in emergencies.</p> <p>Several months before the contract terminated, the city negotiated with and purchased of the defendant, for $500, the tract on which his plant was situated. Held that whether the land thus purchased was or was not included in the original contract, evidence of its purchase was at least admissible to show that before this suit was commenced the city had acquired title to the very land and its appurtenances which it now sought to have the defendant convey to it.</p> <p>In cremating the garbage the defendant at first used water which he pumped up from two brooks and a spring upon the triangular piece of land upon which the plant was situated, being the same he afterward conveyed to the city, but later, and for his own convenience, built a dam upon other non-adjoining land from which the water was brought by gravity to the plant by means of a pipe. Held that the contract gave the city no right to this land, nor any right to take the ponded water as an “appurtenance ” to the land upon which the crematory plant stood.</p> <p>A right or easement in other land will not pass as an “ appurtenance ” to the land conveyed, unless it is necessary to the enjoyment of such land.</p> <p>Statements marked “proven” in the draft-finding will be treated, upon appeal, as part of the trial court’s finding; and therefore a motion to correct the finding by adding such facts to it is unnecessary and improper.</p>

Actions to foreclose méchanics’ liens, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried together to the court, George W. Wheeler, J.; facts found and judgment rendered in each case for the defendants, from which the plaintiffs appealed.

Action to recover a tax laid by the town of Guilford on the water mains and hydrants of the defendant in said town, brought to and .tried by the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County upon demurrer to the complaint; the court, Bennett, J., sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiffs appealed.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting in the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, brought to and heard hi damages by the Superior Court in New Haven County, Ralph Wheeler, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for nominal damages only, from which the plaintiff appealed.

Action to recover for merchandise sold, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County where successive defenses by way of counterclaim were adjudged insufficient on demurrer (.Rorabaak and Shumway, Js.), and the cause was afterward tried to the court, Gteorge W. Wheeler, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants.

<p>Action for the conversion of store fixtures, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Thayer, J.; verdict for the plaintiff which the trial judge set aside as against the evidence, and appeal by the plaintiff.</p>

Merwin of New Haven, deceased, in allowing claims to eleven different claimants and in failing to find the cash value of securities held for two other claims, taken by the administrator on said estate to the Superior Court in New Haven County where the respective claimants filed pleas in abatement upon the ground that a separate appeal should have been taken from the allowance of each of the controverted claims ; the court, Case, J., sustained the pleas in abatement and…

Suit to restrain the maintenance and use of a sluiceway across a highway, whereby surface water in considerable quantity was gathered and unnecessarily discharged upon the plaintiffs’ dooryard and into their cellar and well, and also for damages, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in Litchfield County, Rorábach, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs, and appeal by the defendant.

Action charging the defendant with being the father of the plaintiff’s bastard child, brought before a justice of the peace and thence, by a binding-over order, to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Coats, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, and appeal by the defendant from the refusal of the trial judge to set aside the verdict as against the evidence.

<p>Writ of error to reverse a judgment of a justice of the peace in an action of summary process, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County, Coats, J.; judgment for the defendants, and appeal by the plaintiff.</p> <p>The summary process complaint presented to the justice of the peace and dated February 2d, 1906, alleged that on January 5th, 1901, the defendants in error gave to a partnership of which the plaintiff in error was a member a written lease of certain premises, which lease was set out at length in the complaint. By the terms of this lease it appeared that it was given “for the term of one year with a privilege of five years from the first day of Feb., 1901.” In its concluding paragraph it was further provided that “ any holding over by the lessees shall be taken to be a renewal of said lease for a period of one year with the aforesaid privilege.” The lessees agreed “ to peaceably quit and surrender the premises at the end of the term, or sooner termination of this lease, in as good condition as the same are or shall be put,” etc. In the following paragraph provision is made for the termination of the lease for nonpayment of rent, unauthorized alterations, commission of waste or injury to the premises, and for the recovery of possession by the lessors at any time thereafter, without re-entry in the manner prescribed by the statute relating to summary process. Then follows, as the closing words of this paragraph, the following : “ and all right of notice to quit possession is expressly waived by said lessees.” The complaint further alleged that on February 1st, 1901, said lessees entered into possession under said lease, that the plaintiff in error subsequently succeeded to the rights of said copartnership lessees, that on February 1st, 1906, said lease expired and terminated by lapse of time, and that the plaintiff in error still neglected and refused to surrender the possession.</p> <p>To this complaint the defendant demurred and the demurrer was overruled. Judgment having been afterward rendered for the plaintiffs, the present writ of error was brought.</p>

Action to recover damages for the nondelivery of two bushels of seed corn purchased by the plaintiff, brought to the City Court of Waterbury and thence by the plaintiff’s appeal to the District Court of Waterbury and tried to the jury before Peale, Acting-Judge; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $23 damages, and appeal by the defendants.

Action to recover damages for an alleged assault by the defendant’s servant in attempting to eject the plaintiff from one of the defendant’s street-railway cars, brought to and heard in damages by the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County, Ullman, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $200, and appeal by the defendant,

Action to recover damages for personal injuries, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County and tried to the jury before Qurtis, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant for alleged errors in the rulings and charge of the court.

Strong of New London, deceased, taken to the Superior Court in New London County, Gager, J., and reserved, upon a finding of facts, for the advice of this court.

Action to recover damages for a breach of warranty in the sale of a horse, brought to the District Court of Waterbury and tried to the jury before Cowell, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant Rogers.

<p>The rule that all prior oral negotiations are merged in the subsequent written instrument, has no application where the parties do not intend to embody their entire oral agreement in the writing.</p> <p>The question of their intent is one for the determination of the trial court, in view of their language and conduct and of all the surrounding circumstances.</p> <p>Such determination will not be reviewed on appeal, unless the record shows an error of law or of logic in reaching it.</p>

Application to this court for an order directing the Hon. William L. Bennett, a judge of the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County, to make and file a finding in a cause tried to the jury in said court, and from the judgment in which the applicant, defendant therein, desired to appeal.

<p>The record of the Public Acts made and kept by the secretary of State is evidence, and ordinarily conclusive evidence, of the existence or nonexistence of an Act of the General Assembly; although in certain proceedings the existence of an Act which does not appear in that record may be established by other evidence.</p> <p>A bill- retained by one house of the General Assembly to await its decision upon a motion to reconsider its action in passing it, is not then in a situation to be “presented” to the Governor for his approval, nor can it be said to have “ passed both houses ” within the meaning of that expression in Article 4, § 12 of the Constitution of this State.</p> <p>Pending action by the House of Representatives upon a motion to reconsider its decision in passing a certain bill—which motion was temporarily laid upon the table—the bill, through the inadvertence and mistake of the clerk, was gathered up with others and sent to the Governor who endorsed his approval thereon. Later in the same day, which was the last day of the session, the House, on learning of the mistake, recalled the bill and the Governor cancelled his endorsement of approval, and upon the return of the bill to the House its earlier action was reconsidered and the measure indefinitely postponed, shortly after which the Legislature adjourned sine die. Held that the bill never became a law.</p> <p>Courts are not warranted in setting aside, as void, action of a legislative body in respect to a matter clearly within its power, merely because that body may have violated or departed from its own rules of procedure. Such rules are the servants of the legislative body and are subject to its own independent authority.</p>

, upon the respondent’s motion to quash the alternative writ; the court granted the motion to quash and rendered judgment for the respondent, from which the relator appealed. By stipulation of the parties the companion case of State ex rel. New Tort Life Insurance Company v. Upson, Insurance Commissioner, which involved the same issues; was heard and determined by this court upon the record in this cause.

Action by a Minnesota receiver to collect an assessment made by a Minnesota court against the defendant and other stockholders of an insolvent corporation of that State, under its laws imposing a double liability, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County where a demurrer to the complaint was overruled (Thayer, J.) and the cause was afterward tried to the court, Reed, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries received in a collision on the highway, alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence in driving his automobile, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Ooats, J.; verdict for the plaintiff for $175, which the trial court trebled on motion of the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

Action on assigned claims for goods sold and delivered, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Bennett, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for §811, and appeal by the defendant for alleged errors in the rulings and charge of the court.

Action on contract, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County and tried to the court, Nicholson, Acting-Judge ; judgment for defendant, and appeal by plaintiff.

<p>Action to recover the amount of a death-benefit, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, Curtis, J., upon the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ amended reply; the court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiffs appealed.</p>

Suit to determine the validity of a contract made. by the hoard of health of the city of Bridgeport for the removal of garbage, and to restrain the city, pending suit, from making any payments thereon, brought to and reserved by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, Gager, J., upon an agreed finding of facts, for the advice of this court.

Action to iecover for professional services rendered by an attorney at law, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in New Haven County, George W. Wheeler, J., upon demurrer to the complaint, after some of its paragraphs had been expunged (Oase, J.) on motion ; the court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed.

Action to recover rent, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County after a demurrer to a part of the third defense of the answer had been sustained (Bennett, J.') ; judgment for plaintiff, and appeal by defendant.

Suit for the annulment of two mechanic’s liens, alleged, to be a cloud on plaintiff’s title, and for their discharge of record, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in New Haven County, Case, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.

Action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Ullman, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for |250, and appeal by the defendant.

Action upon an alleged contract to recover for merchandise sold and delivered to the defendants, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, Curtis, J., upon a demurrer to the complaint; the court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiffs appealed.

Action of interpleader to determine the respective rights of the defendants in and to a hank deposit held by the plaintiff, brought to the City Court of Meriden and thence, by appeal of the defendant Waldron, administrator, to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried to the court, Case, J.; facts found and judgment rendered in favor of Elizabeth A. McCormack, and appeal by the defendant Waldron, administrator, from the refusal of the trial court to allow the issues…

Action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by a vicious bull of the defendant which had been knowingly allowed to trespass in the inclosure of the plaintiff’s father, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Har ven County and tried to the jury before Ullman, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $600, and appeal by the defendant.

<p>Action upon an oral agreement to recover one half of the cost of additions and improvements made to buildings owned by the parties in common, brought to and tried by the District Court of Waterbury, Peck, Acting-Judge; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for |600, and appeal by the defendant.</p>

Suit to obtain a partition-sale of real estate owned by the parties in common, brought to and tried by the District Court of Waterbury, Peek, Acting-Judge ; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

<p>The established water rates of the city of Waterbury, under which the plaintiff was supplied with water, ran from three cents per hundred gallons for a daily average of less than 500 gallons, to one half cent per hundred gallons where the average daily use exceeded 10,000 gallons. The plaintiff’s manufacturing plant, which was contained in one inclosure, comprised several buildings connected with each other, to most or all of which water was supplied by means of a large distribution pipe owned and laid by the plaintiff upon its premises, and connected in turn with the street mains. Of the eight connections, seven had been supphed with meters by the plaintiff at its own expense, and one by the city. All the water used was for the same general purpose, and the total quantity greatly exceeded a daily average of 10,000 gallons. Held that the plaintiff should be charged a uniform rate determinable by the average daily consumption of all the water used in the entire plant, and not such varying and higher rates as might be applicable to the smaller quantities of water which were consumed in each building or which passed through each of the several meters.</p> <p>Whether a different rule would apply where water was furnished to separate closes owned by the same proprietor, or for different uses upon the same close, quoere.</p>

Writ of error to review a judgment of the District Court of Waterbury, Peasley, J. At the April term, 1906, to which the writ was returnable, a plea of nul tiel record was filed, whereupon an order of reference to the State Referee was made, as of course. Rules of Court, p. 103, § 38. His report, returned to the June term, found the issue for the defendant in error.

Suit to obtain a conveyance of real estate, a release and discharge of attachment liens thereon, an injunction and other equitable relief, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, George W. Wheeler, J.; facts found and judgment rendered in favor of all the defendants except Sherwood, from which the plaintiff appealed.

Action upon the so-called common counts to recover for a quantity of hay, brought before a justice of the peace and thence by the defendant’s appeal to the Superior Court in Middlesex County, where the plaintiff was allowed to file a substitute complaint alleging a conversion of the hay, and the cause was afterward tried to the court, Reed, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

Action against an agent to recover damages for his misconduct, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Ralph Wheeler, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $923, and appeal by the defendant.

<p>The nationality of a party, his experience in other countries, and his unfamiliarity with our modes of judicial procedure, are circumstances which the trial judge, in the exercise of a reasonable discretion, may properly call to the attention of a jury for their consideration in determining the motive and purpose of such party in paying and promising to pay money to witnesses who testify in his behalf.</p> <p>The fact that a party is of another nationality, the motives and mental operations of whose people we may not easily understand, may be self-evident from his examination on the witness-stand without direct testimony to that effect.</p> <p>While the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, may justify a jury in disregarding the entire testimony of a discredited witness, it does not force or compel them to such a conclusion. It is possible that even such a witness may give some testimony which the jury may consider in connection with the whole evidence.</p> <p>In an action for assault and battery, the jury were instructed that if the attack was wanton and malicious they might award the plaintiff exemplary damages, limiting these, however, to the “natural expense of the litigation” in excess of taxable costs. Held that the words quoted, when fairly construed, limited exemplary damages to a reasonable expense properly incurred in the litigation, and was therefore a sufficient compliance with the well-established law of this State.</p>

Appeal by the plaintiff from the refusal of the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County, Coats, J., to allow him more than $1 costs, in an action in which the jury had awarded him $1 damages.

Action of summary process, brought to and tried by the City Court of Hartford, Bullard, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed. In this court the appellee filed a motion to erase, upon the ground that an appeal would not lie from the judgment of the City Court, the defendant’s remedy being by writ of error.

<p>Action upon a promissory note, and also for wages due, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Ralph Wheeler, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $1,114, and appeal by the defendant.</p> <p>The complaint states two causes of action in separate counts: first, an indebtedness of $1,000 due upon the defendant’s promissory note to the plaintiff for that amount, dated April 15th, 1899, payable on demand, and now owned by the plaintiff, together with interest upon said note from January 1st, 1904 ; second, an indebtedness for work and labor performed by the plaintiff, for the defendant, from January 9th, 1902, to January 18th, 1902, at $20 a week.</p> <p>The answer to the first count admits the receipt from the plaintiff of $1,000, and the execution and delivery of a note for that amount, as alleged in the complaint; and alleges that the defendant has fully paid the plaintiff all money due thereon.</p> <p>The answer to the second count admits the performance of work and labor by the plaintiff between the dates specified, as alleged; and alleges that said work and labor was in accordance with an express contract and at the agreed price of $15 per week, and further alleges payment in full for all said work and labor.</p> <p>The reply denies specifically the allegations of new matter contained in the answer.</p> <p>Upon the issues raised by these pleadings the case was tried to the jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff to recover $1,114.16 damages.</p> <p>The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, which motion was denied by the court.</p> <p>The defendant appealed to this court, assigning, as the only reason of appeal, error in denying the motion for a new trial; subsequently, by an amendment to the appeal, error was also assigned in the admission of one question asked of the defendant upon his cross-examination.</p>

Information charging the carnal knowledge and abuse of a female child under the age of sixteen, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury before Qase, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty of an assault with intent to carnally know and abuse, and appeal by the accused. The child as to whom the abuse was charged, became six years of age two days before she was sworn as a witness.

<p>Action on written contract to recover money agreed to be repaid, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury before Thayer, J.; verdict and judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.</p> <p>The plaintiff and defendant executed the following agreement: “Ansel A. Beckwith, of Norwich, Conn., agrees to sell and convey, by good and sufficient warranty deed, to Philip Liberman of the city of New York, who agrees to buy the land and buildings, situated in said Norwich and bounded northerly by Water Street and land of the estate of Henry B. Norton, easterly by land of Henry B. Norton’s estate, southerly by the Thames River and westerly by land of the estate of Charles N. Earnham deceased, subject to railroad right of way across the same, owned by the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Co., and a mortgage to the Dime Savings Bank for 11,000.00 dollars, which mortgage the said Philip Liberman is to assume as part of the consideration of this conveyance.</p> <p>• “ The price is to be $22,050.00 to be paid by the assumption of said mortgage and the payment in cash of $11,050.00 by said Philip Liberman. Deed to be given and money paid on February 10th, 1905. There has been paid by said Philip Liberman to said Ansel A. Beckwith to-day $1,000.00 of said $11,050.00. For said consideration the said A. A. Beckwith is to convey all the machinery, tools, scales and implements in said building, the steam engine and boiler, 2 grist mills, one cob mill, 7 elevators, 3 conveyors, 3 reels, one hopper scale and all the shafting, belting and pulleys in said building. Also 2 wagons, 2 double harnesses, 1 single harness, 3 horses. Also all the furniture in the office except one roller-top desk. Also the siding railway track to the premises from the main track-across the land of the estate of Henry B. Norton and all the rights and privileges on and over the Norton land, conveyed to me by Henry B. Norton and subject to the provisions of said Norton conveyance.</p> <p>“ The buyer is not to be bound by this contract, unless the title to the property is satisfactory to him. If either party to this contract is not able to complete this sale by giving the said conveyance on said 10 th day of February, 1905, or paying the price on said date, then the deed may be given, or the price paid at any time within ten days from said 10th day of February, 1905. In case the said Philip Liberman is not satisfied with the title, the $1,000.00 paid by said Liberman on this contract is to be returned by said Ansel A. Beckwith to said Philip Liberman.</p> <p>“ Dated at Norwich, this 21st day of January, A. D. 1905.</p> <p>“ A. A. Beckwith,</p> <p>“ Philip Liberman.</p> <p>“ Witnesses :</p> <p>“Wm. H. Shields,</p> <p>“ Frank N. Gardner.”</p> <p>On January 21st, 1905, in accordance with this contract, the plaintiff paid the defendant $1,000. On February 10th, 1905, the plaintiff notified the defendant that he was not satisfied with the title, and demanded a return of the $1,000 paid, which demand was refused. This action is brought to recover said $1,000. All the allegations of the complaint are admitted by the answer, except the allegation that “ the title to said property was not satisfactory to the plaintiff,” which is denied.</p> <p>The appeal assigns error in the refusal of the court to charge in accordance with plaintiff’s request; in the charge as given ; and in the rulings during the trial.</p>

Action to recover the possession of certain riparian premises together with damages, and for an injunction, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in New London County, Gager, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the defendants, and appeal by the plaintiffs. Shaw’s Cove is an arm of the sea forming a part of New London harbor and extending in a general northerly direction from the main body of the harbor into the mainland lying on the westerly side therecf.

Action upon a receipt given to an officer for property attached, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County where demurrers to portions of the answer were sustained (Bishop and Hubbard, Js.') and the cause was afterward tried to the court, Ullman, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

Action to recover money loaned, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County, Bennett, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant. The defendant, in November, 1903, gave to the plaintiff his note for $475.

Action to recover damages for the conversion of household effects left with the defendant on storage, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Tillman, J. ; verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs for |1,000, and appeal by the defendant.

Action by the indorsee against the acceptor of four bills of exchange, brought to the District Court of Waterbury and tried to the jury before Peasley, J; verdict and judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.

Suit to permanently restrain the defendant from building upon land alleged to have become a highway by dedication, and from otherwise obstructing public travel thereon, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County, Bennett, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs, and appeal by the defendant.

Suit to determine the rights of the respective beneficiaries under the will of William Button of New Haven, deceased, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in New Haven County, Gteorge W. Wheeler, J. ; facts found and judgment rendered in favor of the respondent Clara J. Welton, and appeal by the other respondents and by the plaintiff.

Action to recover damages for negligently causing the death, of the plaintiff’s intestate, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County and tried to the jury before MorabacJc, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $750, and appeal by the defendants. The judgment appealed from was rendered upon a retrial of the cause. See 78 Conn. 276.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been, caused by a defective highway, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County where a judgment of nonsuit was rendered in favor of the Danbury and Bethel Street Railway Company, and the case against the city was afterward tried to the jury before Curtis, J.; verdict and judgment for the defendant city, and appeal by the plaintiff.

Action to recover a fire insurance loss, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County where a demurrer to the amended complaint was overruled (Thayer, J.) and the cause was afterward tried to the court, Borábach, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the. defendant.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an, adverse judgment of the Superior Court in Fairfield County, Gager, J., following the refusal of the trial court to allow a proposed amendment of the complaint after the cause had been remanded by this court for further proceedings according to law.

<p>A release of one of several joint trespassers, given for a valuable consideration, is a release of all.</p> <p>The amount or value of the consideration is immaterial in the case of an unliquidated demand.</p> <p>A receipt is evidence that an obligation has been discharged, but a release is itself a discharge of it.</p> <p>The fact that those who caused the false imprisonment of the plaintiff intended to secure, and believed they had secured, his confinement by lawful means, does not exonerate them from liability to him as wrongdoers.</p> <p>An objection to the admission in evidence of a general release, because it does not appear that it was in fact given to discharge the particular cause of action sued upon, is one addressed to the effect to be given to it rather than to its admissibility.</p> <p>The plain legal effect' of a written instrument which embodies the final agreement of the parties cannot be varied by parol evidence that they did not intend it to be so interpreted, or even expressly agreed that it should have no such effect; and this rule operates in favor of those not parties to the instrument as fully as in favor of those who executed it.</p> <p>A general release of all rights and causes of action, debts, dues, claims and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity, given for a valuable consideration, extinguishes the liability of the releasee for any unlawful confinement to which he may have previously subjected the releasor.</p> <p>That allegations which are absolutely immaterial have been traversed does not prevent a trial court from excluding evidence offered to prove their truth.</p> <p>Where the facts before the jury are undisputed and the question at issue is purely one of law, the proper course is for the trial court to direct what verdict shall be rendered.</p> <p>The case of O’Shea v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co., 105 Fed. Rep. 559, disapproved.</p>

Action to recover damages for preventing the plaintiff from working at his trade and from obtaining employment, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Ralph Wheeler, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $425, and appeal by the defendants from the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict as against the evidence.

Actions of replevin, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in New Haven County, Reed, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff in each case, and appeal by the defendants. The finding showed these facts: The plaintiff is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the business of making, selling and leasing hoisting engines and cableways.

Action to recover the amount of a savings-bank deposit alleged to have been given to the plaintiff by the depositor prior to his decease, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County, Bennett, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.

<p>At common law the property which one had in a dog was of a base and inferior kind, and entitled to less regard and protection than property in other domestic animals.</p> <p>From an early period the General Assembly of this State has enacted laws in respect to the custody and ownership of dogs and the protection of property rights therein, and by such legislation the ancient common-law rules upon these subjects have been materially changed.</p> <p>Under the existing law of this State which practically defines the status of a dog as property (General Statutes, §§ 4477-4488, as amended by Public Acts of 1903, Chap. 6), no action will lie to recover the value of an unregistered dog over six months old against one who unintentionally, but negligently, kills it.</p> <p>These statutory provisions are but regulations for the protection of person and property, which it is competent for the legislature to enact in the legitimate exercise of its police power.</p>

Action of replevin to recover the fixtures and contents of a retail drug-store, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in New London County, Crager, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant. In this court the appellee filed a plea in abatement, alleging that the appeal was not seasonably taken, to which the appellant demurred. Demurrer sustained and plea in abatement overruled.

Action upon a promissory note by one indorser against another, brought by appeal of the defendants from a judgment of a justice of the peace to the Court of Common Pleas in Litchfield County and tried to the court, Welch, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants.

Action to restrain the defendant from obstructing a passway, and for damages, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Litchfield County, Coats, Acting-Judge; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

Action for damages from collision with a trolley pole while endeavoring to get out of the way of a trolley car, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, where a demurrer to the complaint was sustained (Robinson, J.j, an amendment was moved for and disallowed (Gager, J.j, and judgment was rendered for defendant.

Information for keeping illuminating fluid for sale which was alleged to be inflammable below one hundred and ten degrees Fahrenheit, brought to the City Court of Middletown and thence by a binding-over to the. Superior Court - in Middlesex County, and tried to the jury before Case, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, and appeal by the accused.

<p>Action on a receivers’ bond, brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County where demurrers to the complaint, filed by the defendants other than Spittler, who made no defense, were overruled (Gager, J.'), while those filed by the plaintiff to the respective answers of the other two defendants were sustained (Reed, J.'), and judgment was afterward rendered (Case, J.~) for the plaintiff against all the defendants, from which the defendants other than Spittler severally appealed.</p> <p>The complaint stated this case: On September 8d, 1904, Spittler and Corbin were, in vacation and upon a complaint returnable to the Superior Court in Litchfield County on the first Tuesday of September, 1904, appointed receivers of the Vulcan Manufacturing Company, and on that day a joint and several bond for $20,000 was given to the State, executed by them as principals and the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company as surety, conditioned for the faithful performance by Spittler and Corbin of their duties as such receivers. On March 5th, 1905, Spittler was removed by the court from the receivership, and one Bierce appointed permanent receiver. On May 1st, 1905, upon a hearing of Spittler’s account as receiver, it was found by the court that there was due from him $2,871.65, and his successor was ordered to demand payment, and in default thereof authorized to institute suit against Spittler and his sureties. Demand has been made on the defendants, and payment refused, and said sum remains unpaid.</p> <p>Corbin’s answer alleged that said appointment of Spittler and Corbin was as temporary receivers ; that the condition of the bond given by them was that if they (the principals) “ shall well and truly perform their duties under such appointment and in the event that they shall hereafter, at any time or times be confirmed or appointed in said action, either as temporary or permanent receivers of said Vulcan Manufacturing Company, as aforesaid, their duties as such receivers, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise in full force and effect ” ; that on October 7th, 1904, the court, following an application for the appointment of a permanent receiver or receivers filed by said temporary receivers, appointed said Spittler as sole permanent receiver, and that from and after that date said Corbin ceased to be or to act as a receiver of said company, or to participate in the management of the affairs of said receivership; that upon said day said Spittler and Corbin filed in court their account as temporary receivers to that date; that the same was thereupon approved and accepted by the court; and that the defalcation or misfeasance of Spittler, if any there was, occurred after said date. The order appointing Spittler as permanent receiver, which was made a part of the answer, decrees that the bond on file be “ continued in force for said permanent receiver.”</p> <p>The answer of the surety compan}»- set up substantially, the same facts pleaded by Corbin, and also denied any default by Spittler as permanent receiver.</p>

Information for placing an explosive compound in a stick of kindling wood with intent to injure the person and property of another, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County and tried to the jury before RorabaeJc, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, and appeal by the accused. Upon the trial and during the opening argument of the Assistant State’s Attorney, the following occurred: .

Action against a contractor and his surety, upon their bond, to recover damages for breach of the former’s contract to heat and ventilate a school building in the plaintiff city, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the court, Shumivay, November 11th, 1901, the defendant, The National Steam Economizer Company, as contractor, entered into a written contract with the plaintiff, as owner, to install certain heating and ventilating apparatus in the…

Action for the possession of land in Milford, and for damages, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County and tried to the court, Bennett, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for plaintiffs.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to and beard in damages by the Superior Court in Fair-field County, Gager, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $2,000, and appeal by the defendant.

, upon a finding of facts, for the advice of this court. The facts appearing in the record which are material to the decision in this case are as follows :— Roxey Foss of Willimantic died November 12th, 1902. Her heirs at law were two sisters and the children of another sister.

Action for an alleged libel, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County where successive demurrers to the complaint in its original and amended form were sustained QRorabacle, J.), and judgment was afterward rendered (Gager, J.) for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed.

Milton A. Shumway, a judge of the Superior Court, against a large number of persons alleged to claim an interest in the lands. Judgment for plaintiffs, and appeal by two of the defendants. The appellees pleaded in abatement in this court because, although the finding of the judge of the Superior Court was filed on September 27th, 1906, and the appellants notified thereof on September 28th, the appeal, which was dated October 11th, was not filed until October 18th.

<p>Appeal from a decree of the Court of Probate for the district of Norwalk approving a certain written instrument as the last will and testament of David Hoyt of Norwalk, deceased, and refusing to admit to probate a certain other and later instrument, taken to the Superior Court in Fair-field County and tried to the jury before Gager, J.; verdict and judgment in favor of the defendants, and appeal by the plaintiff.</p>

<p>Action against the proprietor of a barber-shop to recover double damages, under chapter 111 of the Public Acts of 1905, for depriving the plaintiff, a colored man, of the customary accommodations of the shop, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County where a demurrer to the complaint was sustained (Curtis, J.) and judgment rendered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed.</p> <p>The complaint alleged, in substance, that the plaintiff was a colored man, that the defendant was the proprietor of a barber-shop, and that the latter, contrary to the provisions of chapter 111 of the Public Acts of 1905, and on account of the former’s color, refused to the former, and deprived him of, the advantages, facilities, privileges and accommodations of said shop, for which he had applied and presented himself. The defendant demurred to the complaint, upon the ground that said barber-shop was not a place of public accommodation within the meaning of said Act. The court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the defendant.</p>

Suit to determine the rights of the respective beneficiaries under the will of Samuel B. S. Bissell of Norwalk, deceased, brought to and reserved by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, Shumway, J., upon an agreed statement of facts, for the advice of this court. • Samuel Burr Sherwood Bissell of Norwalk died August 23d, 1894, possessed of a considerable estate and leaving a will under which- he gave the residue of his estate to trustees.

Suit by a testamentary trustee for the construction of a will, brought to and. reserved by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, Shumway, J., for the advice of this court.

Suit for the construction of the will of Mary M. Phelan of Waterbury, deceased, brought to and reserved by the Superior Court in New Haven County, Case, J., upon an agreed statement of facts, for the advice of this court. Mary M. Phelan of Waterbury died March 2d, 1905, possessed of an estate consisting of personal property, and leaving a will in which she gave one third of the residue of her estate to her half-brother, Patrick Fitzpatrick.

Action to récover damages for the loss, through negligence, of a traveling-bag alleged to have been delivered to the defendants for carriage, brought by the defendants’ appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Bennett, J.; the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, from the judgment on which the plaintiffs appealed.

Action to recover damages for the alleged conversion, of a piano, brought to the District Court of Waterbury and tried to the jury before Peasley, Deputy-Judge ; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $259, and appeal by the defendants.

Merwin, deceased, taken to the Superior Court in New Haven County, where, on motion of the appellee, it was erased from the docket by Thayer, J.

Action to recover for the support and treatment of two employees of the defendant company at the plaintiff’s hospital, brought to and tried by the City Court of New Haven, Mathewson, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $162, and appeal by the defendant.

Action by a tenant against his landlord to recover water rents paid by the tenant to the City of Waterbury, brought to the District Court of Waterbury where a demurrer to the complaint was pro forma sustained (Cowell, .7.) and judgment rendered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed.

Indictment for murder in the ‘first degree, brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County and tried to the jury before George W. Wheeler, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, and appeal by the defendant. Upon the trial the State offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, among other facts, the following: George H. Goodale, the deceased, had for some days prior to July 6th, 1906, lived- on a small farm in the western part of the town of Middletown.

Actions brought to the Superior Court for Hartford County by a Minnesota receiver against a national banking association, as a shareholder in a Minnesota corporation, to collect an assessment made against the respective defendants and other shareholders in the latter by a Minnesota court, under the Minnesota statute imposing a double liability on shareholders of an insolvent corporation.

Suit to restrain the defendants from taking a strip of the plaintiffs’ land for sidewalk purposes, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in Litchfield Comity,'Gager, J., upon demurrers to the complaint; the court sustained the demurrers and rendered judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiffs appealed.

Suit to determine the validity and construction of the will of Jared Wentworth of Mansfield, deceased, brought to and reserved' by the Superior Court in Tolland County, Reed, J., upon the facts stated in the complaint, for the advice of this court.

<p>In an action to recover the contract price for the erection of a shed, the trial court found that after the written agreement had been executed the parties had some talk about changing its terms, which resulted, however, in a mutual misunderstanding; that upon discovering this the plaintiff renewed his oral offer to enlarge the shed for a specified amount, informing the defendants that if it was not accepted he should construct the shed under the existing agreement; that the defendants declined to accept his offer, and the plaintiff then built the shed in compliance with the written agreement. Held that upon these facts the trial court was fully justified in its ultimate conclusion that the written agreement had not been abandoned or modified, and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the contract price and interest, whether such conclusion were to be regarded as one of fact or of law.</p>

Action by the indorsee against the payee and indorser of a negotiable promissory note payable in monthly instalments, brought to the City Court of Hartford and tried to the jury before Bullard, J, after a demurrer to the second defense had been sustained ; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

Action by complaint in two counts, for taxes on land, the foreclosure of tax liens, and possession of the premises, brought to the District Court of Waterbury where a demurrer to the complaint was sustained (Peasley, Deputy-Judge) and judgment was rendered for the defendants.

Amicable suit to determine conflicting claims to funds held by a trustee under the will of William W. Boardman, late of New Haven, deceased, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and reserved by that court, Thayer, J., upon the facts stated in the complaint, for the advice of this court. William W. Boardman, a resident of New Haven, made and executed his will, drafted by himself, on March 19th, 1870.

Suit to secure an accounting for the proceeds of sales of real estate in which the plaintiff had an undivided interest, and for other equitable relief, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, George IF. Wheeler, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in maintaining a crosswalk, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Bennett, J.; verdict and judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff. The defect in question is alleged to have been a hole in a crosswalk leading from one corner of a street to an opposite corner.

Action to recover the reasonable worth of services rendered the defendants’ intestate, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Oase, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $1,500, and appeal by the defendants for alleged errors in rulings on evidence.

Action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the pollution of a stream flowing through the plaintiff’s dairy farm, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before JRoraback, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $2,300, and appeal by the defendant.

Action to recover damages for the alleged wrongful rejection by the defendant, as moderator of a voting district, of a ballot cast by the plaintiff, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the court, Shumway, J., upon a demurrer to the complaint; the court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed.

Keating, taken by a resident and taxpayer of Bridgeport to the Superior Court in said county and tried to the court, Bhumway, J.; facts found and judgment rendered revoking the grant of said license, and appeal by the applicant.

<p>Action of forcible entry and detainer, brought to and tried by the Hon. Howard J. Curtis, judge of the Court of Oo2muon Pleas for Fairfield County. Judgment for. defendants.</p>

Action to foreclose a mortgage of real estate made by an infant, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, Ourtis, J.; judgment for defendant, and appeal by plaintiff. The complaint is one framed in the ordinary form of a foreclosure of a mortgage of lands. The defendant is described as the maker of the note and mortgage.

<p>An assignee of a chose in action may bring suit thereon in the name of the assignor, as at common law, or in his own name, setting forth in his complaint that he is the actual and bona fide owner thereof, and when and how he acquired title, in accordance with General Statutes, § 631.</p> <p>While the law encourages, it does not compel, the settlement of all controversies between the same parties by a single action. A plaintiff may bring suit upon one of several causes of action which he may have against the defendant, or join them all; and a defendant may or may not, as he sees fit, plead a set-off or counterclaim which he has against the plaintiff.</p> <p>Neither party to a suit can require a stranger to be cited in either as coplaintiff or codefendant, in order to enable one of them to litigate with him a claim in no way connected with the matter on trial, and whose presence or absence cannot in anywise affect the judgment to be rendered between the original parties.</p> <p>An administrator, who was also cashier of the .defendant bank, misappropriated the funds of the estate for the bank’s benefit, and his surety, an indemnity company, paid the estate the amount of its loss, took an assignment of its claim against the bank, and sued the bank in the name of the estate. Held that the bank could not compel the indemnity company either to sue in its own name or be made a codefendant, merely to enable the bank to collect in such suit the amount of a bond which the indemnity company had given the bank as surety for its cashier, inasmuch as the two causes of action and the transactions out of which they respectively arose were entirely distinct and independent.</p>

Action to secure the condemnation of an oyster boat for illegally dredging on private oyster-grounds, brought by appeal of the owner from an adverse judgment of the City Court of Bridgeport to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County and tried to the jury before Curtis, J.; the court directed a verdict and rendered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Action to recover damages for cutting and carrying away trees growing on land of the plaintiff, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury befoi’e Reed, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $585, and appeal by the defendant.

Action to foreclose a mortgage, brought to and heard by the Superior Court in New Haven County, Thayer, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant Mary S. Bassett appealed.

Information for larceny of a bank check, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury before Shumway, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty,and appeal by the accused.