Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1883-04-20
CinITrENDEN COUNTY COURT.


'""' .nef Neie undOie 10 ugree, ana tnt
were therefore discharged
The entire day was occupied with How
vs.. Parsons, testimony not having been fl
ished at adjournment for the day,
Only one more civil case remains to
lried-Charles Lafountan vs.. Abraham
The Jury DiScharged-Crimin Mai
| ters.
In Howe VS.. Parsons, the Jury came
Saturday morning with verdict Of $50 fc
plaintiff.
In the case of Lafountain vs.. Value juds
ment is to be given the plaintiff, unless legt
cause for continuance is shown.
After disposing of some criminal matters
the jurors were discharged for the tern
and recess taken until 10 o'clock Mon
day morning.
The criminal cases disposed of were a
follows; Old docket: Continued. State VS.
Daniel Dillon, Joseph GARNER, John Wright
John Lynch, James Jordan, e.. N. Mead
Henry w. Mason; not to be carriet
forward, State VS.. Thomas Pope JOSEPH
Colt. Anna Carter; nolle pros'd, Stat,
vs.. John IL. Sterling left open, State VS.
Cicero G. Peck, Noble Love, j. e. Weller
Tresa Aapa.
New Docket: In the liquor cases, the
following respondents pleaded guilty and
were sentenced to pay the fine named and
costs. Edward Marcott, $50; same, $50
John O'Mara, same SO; John Ryan, $40 :
same, $40; Fardce Cloran, SO; James
Kelley, SO; Henry Premier, $40 same,
$40; John Watson, $780, II. l.. Melauey,
information, 500 Continued State vs..
John Ryan, Philomenc Grcg5ire, Michael
Moore and Patrick Fitsimmons; nollc
pros'd, State VS.. Bridget Kailey, Julia
Dion, Patrick Moran, Frank Dunbar, Alfred
Norton, John Watson, Bridget Mckenzie,
=. NJ. Field. Left open, State VS.. Thomas
Murphy. In State vs.. Mary Splawn, de-
fendanl's recognizancc forfeited and iudg-
ment OF City Court affirmed.
Some Divorce Sutts-Thc Daley Co,e.
The County Court resumed its sessions
Monday, spending the first hour in calling
the docket. NJ. A. Bingham, counsel for
Barney Daley, held in $4,000 bail. presented
as bail Patrick Cosgrovc, Michael Sullivan,
W lillian Powers, John German and Martin
Daley. After u somewhat extended inquiry
lhe court rejected the offered bail as insult
hclent. The divorce case was next taken up
Of Martha Smith Va. Arthur L, Smith, A.
v; opauldlng appearing for the petitioner.
The parties were married at MontgOm-
cry, Vermont, December 81, 1868, and
after brief period of welded
bliss the husband began abusing
his wife aud wound up by complete,
" neglccting her, and the grounds of her pc
llion are refusal to support and inolerabc
severity. Decision withheld. Other divorce
suits heard were those of Mary Jane Varney
)f Colchester VS.. Albert Bailey Narney, NJ.
A. bingham for petitioner, cause intolcrabe
severity .. &. Stone of undurhil VS.. Sarah
stone, same calise,.J. J. Monahan for peti-
Toner
In the Winooskl Islander case of Joseph
Lucia and wife VS.. Charles Rowe the default
was stricken off and the case left with the
court A. V. Spauding for plaintiffs.
Court comes in at 10 o'clock this morning.
Some Marital InfeIIcItics Disclosed,
AT the opening of court, Tuesday, tho case
vas taken up of Adolphus Russell vs.. Harriet
Russell, petition 10 annul marriage. 1t ap-
bears that the parties were married in st.
Adams in 1889. Six weeks later petitioner
discovered that his wife had another husband
living, and he left her as soon as he could
'rranse his business affairs and subsequently,
,ronght this petition. Decision reserved.
J. j. Monahan for petitioner.
The next case was that of Laura A. ITorlcr
=. John l.. Horlor, petition for divorce.
The parties were married at llolyUke Mass,
n 1859. In December, 1876 they came to
his city, AMI eight months later the husband
eft these parts and deserted his wife. Deci-
ion reserved. w. ii. Hare for petitioner
Ada a. Fay VS.. Hiram G. Fay was pet.
ion for divorce, the ground alleged being
utolcraole severity. The parties were mar
led ut Cleveland, Ohio, where petitioner was
|. teacher in the public schools in 1880, and
anne to this city in September, 1881. The
petitioner testified to a long course of ILL
rcatment on the part of her husband begin.
ling soon after their marriage. lie finally
deserted her year and a halt ago. Decision
eseIved. IL. q. Wheeler for petitioner.
Recess until , p. IN.
AT the opening OF the afternoon
esslpn the case was taken up OF
emily l.. White of Richmond vs.
.harles +. White, petition for divorce on
he ground of intolcrablc severity. The
parties were married in 1870 and three
months later the husband began to abuse his
wife and in six months he clicked and pound
d her. This sort of thing continued until
White finally deserted his wife aud went to
canada. Decision reserved. $. Ii, Davis
or petitioner.
lie next case was that Of Mary l.. Wood
# Jericho VS.. Augustus Wood, petition for
livorce on the ground of adultery and
ntolerable severity. The petitioner was
represented by VI. a. Bingham and the
petitionec by l.. L. Wilbur and w. l.. Bur
zap. The petitiunuC denied all the charges
brought by the petitioner and claimed that
he petitioner hal treated him with "intol-
'rable severity BY denouucing him as guilty
ii adultery; claimed that any alleged offence
las been c0ndoned and charged the crime
II adultery upon the petitioner. The parties
we're married De. % 1880, aud the tcsti
nony showed "A very unhappy state of af-
airs in the Wood family since that date, a
lretty hired grl being the cause of tn. war,
according to The petitioner.
Testimony for the petitioner had not been
completed al adjournment for the day.
Further Hearings in Divorce suits
The greater part OF the day, Wednesday,
vas taken up with the case of Wood VS..
Wood. The petitioner went upon the stand
anu natly contradictcd all the material ale
cations of the petitioner, and much of the
'ther evidence submitted was Of very con-
radictory character. In the course of Mr..
Woods testimony he sworc to surprising
his wife and Harmon Humphrey of jericho
inder circumstances pointing to an.adulter-
1us connection, and at the noon recess Mr.
Humphrey took the initial steps toward
Islander suit against Mr.. Wood, so that the
asst has by no means been heard of the case.
The real fact appeared to be that the divorce
uit is the elimination of |, bitter quarrel be-
ween Mr.. and Mrs. Wood which a little for
learance and Il little mutual kindness would
'asily and quickly have ended.
The next case taken up was that of Mary b.
Barry VS.. William g. Barry, an uncontested
iivorce suit. The origin Of the trouble was
he fact that the husband was Romanist
md the wife Protestant. The wife declin-
ID to take any steps toward becoming u