Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1891-01-16
ADDISON COUNTY CouRy.\

| II ADDISON COUNTY COURNA
The county conrt resumed its work at
1880 o'clock Tuesday morning, aftet an
intermission of ten days, and two brief
sessions were held during the day.
Both the old and the new-entry dock
cts were called off in the morning, the
old docket for the first time and the new
entry docket for the second time. A
considerable number of civil cases were
assigned for court hearings and several
more were continued, while a few others
were discontinued. OF the ten remain
ing divorce cases which could be tried at
this term, one was discontinued, four
were continued and five were marked for
trial. Several criminal cases were finally
disposed of as follows: State VS.. William
Noonan and Lizzie Garrapy-now Mrs.
Noonan-tried the week before last for
keeping a house of ill-fame, the jury dis
agreeing; mol. pros. entered. State vs.
Hiram Curler, appellant, charged with
breach of the peace; mol. pressed. State
VS.. Carleton Field, appellant, charged
with intoXication; mol. pressed. State
VS.. Benjamin McNorton, ct al. These
respondents are the three young lads
who were indicted in June last for effect
ing an entrance into Bond Bros. store
something like year ago and stealing
therefrom some oranges, candy and other
things of small value. The case was mol.
pressed. In these cases the entries were
mot to be brought forward: two in
dictments for larceny against Edward
Broderick, the respondent having been
convicted and sentenced to State prison
for two years on third similar indict-
ment; State VS.. Charles Page for petty
larceny. Page having been convicted and
having paid fine at this term for sim
liar offence: Stare vs.. Alfred Leno. petit
larceny, and State VS.. Louis st. Clair,
petit larceny. State VS.. Lewis Ieno, Jr.,
charged with larceny, was continued.
With the disposition of the above cases
the criminal work of the term was COM
pleted.
After the calling of the docket it took
Just thirty minutes for DR.. James Il.
Hamlin of Hancock to procure divorce
from his wife, Mary j. Hamlin. The par
ties were married in RiptOn in 1874, and
thereafter lived in Granville, Bristol and
Hancock. Mrs. Hamlin on two occasions
left her husband and ran away with 9TH
er young men. The first time the young
man with whom she started out to begin
life anew stole his employers horse to
carry her off. He was caught and given
Job in Windsor. The lady returned to
her husband, was forgiven, and they
went to living together again. But three
years ago last May Mrs. Hamlin disap-
peared with another fellow, and this time
she did not return to sue for forgiveness.
They have three children. DR.. Hamlin
was granted divorce for desertiOn, al
though the more serious charge could
have been fully proven. Mr.. Bliss ap-
peared for the petitioner and there was
no defense.
No other case was ready for Il hearing
and the court took a recess for dinner
after a session of one hour and ten min
utes. Upon coming in again at O'Clock
it was found that there was still no case
ready to go OH, and further recess was
taken until o'clock to wait the arrival
of witnesses.
Business was resumed at quarter after
three, and another divorce case was heard
This one required forty minutes for its
consideration. 1t was George X. Prime
VS.. Alice NJ. Prime, and the parties were
married in Revere, Mass, in March, 1884
and three days later came up to Bristol
to live. Mrs. Prime did not like Bristol
and was discontinued there. In October
following the marriage she returned t,
Revere, her husband telling her that il
she went it must be for good. In De
cember child was born to her, and her
husband did not believe that he was its
father. He had also been displeased with
visits made to her by former employer
while she lived with him in Bristol. Eff
forts were made by relatives and law
yers to effect reconciliation, and Mrs
Prime herself returned to Bristol IN the
summer of 1886 with the same purpose
in view, but her husband rejected all
overtures. He has meyer seen her since
The divorce was granted for desertion
Mr.. Bliss appeared for Mr.. Prime and nc
defense was made, although Judge Sladt
had been counsel for the woman in some
preliminary conferences in which it had
been agreed by the petitioner that il
case the divorce was granted he would
allow the wife $500. The $500 alimony
was accordingly decreed to her.
In these four cases, which had beer
marked for hearing, judgments were
: antaraI for tba nlaintiffS as NOR Io