Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1896-06-12

| uOWn TlOay ulOTHluS tlc OaSV was ulo-
missed. Charles F. Kingsley represent
ed Mrs. Bentley and no defense was
made.
Julia e. Myrck V. Charles B. Myrick
was the first case Friday morning. These
parties are we'll to-do people, or at least
the woman is, and they live in Shore
ham, near the Bridport line. They have
been married only about four or five
years, but there has been quite little
trouble between them, which the wife
seemed to think was all due to the hus-
bands drinking habits, and she claimed
that she had at times been afraid of Sc
we're personal violence at her husbands
hands. This case occupied more time
than any other heard during the term
and was contested inch by inch. c. NJ.
Wilds appeared for the petitioner and
the Messrs. Button represented the hus-
band. Saturday morning the petition
was dismissed, but on representations
made by Mr.. Wilds the entry was later
changed to with the court" and to this
course the defense took exceptions.
Before the hearing In the above case
was begun Friday morning the case of
julius S. Morgan v. Saloam Morgan, an
other divorce case, was called up, but
Mr.. Wilds, speaking for the woman, OBJ
jected to proceeding with the case as,
he said, the petitioner was in contempt
for having refused or neglected to turn
over some household property to his
wife, as ordered by the court last De-
cember. The matter was argued at
some length, Mr.. Slade representing Mr..
Morgan, and finally Morgan was fined
$50 for contempt Of court in disobeying
the order mentioned. Later in the day
the fine was paid, and the case was con-
tinued
After the Myrick case was got out of
the way three other divorce cases were
called on Friday afternoon. Ormus d.
of these, and the ground was desertion.
This couple were married at East Mid
dlebury in March, 1887. and the hus-
band now resides in Hancock. Three
NNdlc ttS9O last lilOutl bhN wiz INV iiNl
husband and has never returned to him.
The only reason she gave was that she
was dissatisfied with him and would live
\ with him no longer. 1t took only u or
10 minutes to hear this case, and the bill
was at once granted for wilful desertlon.
Judge Slade appeared for Mr.. Lewis
and again there was no defense.
In Norman f. Peck V. Minnie Peck
the cause alleged was adultery. These
parties were married at Crown Point, n.
Y, May u, 1890, and for some time lived
together in Salisbury, where the hus-
band still resides. The court thought
the case amply made out and the bill
was granted at once. Kingsley for the
petitioner; no appearance for the de.
tense.
Thomas F. Barrett V. Margaret Bar
rett. These people were married in
Cincinnati, o., in 1872. They lived at
first in kentucky, then in New York
city and finally came to Vermont and
settled in Starksboro, where the hus
band has lived ever since and where the
woman lived with him up to five years
ago, when she left and went back to her
people in Cincinnati. She made no COM
plant, but simply said that she wouldn't
live in the country any longer. There
was some evidence that the parties had
had a good many battles of words, and
when the court asked Mr.. Barrett when
they first began to quarrel, he said it
was "about tin minutes afther we was
married" The bill was granted instan-
ter. Rider for Barrett; no defense.
The case of Gertrude Peckham V.
Ernest Peckham occupied the greater
part of Friday afternoon. This was
another Bristol case, the parties having
been married about five years ago. The
young woman wanted a divorce on ac-
count of intolerable severity. She testi-
fled that her husband had occasionally
slapped her and once raised his arm as
though to strike her, and also that one
time he locked her out of the house at
night and she had to 60 to a neighbours
and stay. She left her husband once
and was gone two years, but returned
and lived with him until last December,
when she left him finally and instituted
divorce proceedings. j. w. Page rep
resented the woman and Mr.. Rider put
in strong defense for the husband.
Saturday morning the court said that no
cause for divorce had been shown, the
woman being as much to blame as the
husband, was and the bill was dismissed.
The last divorce case to be heard was
Martha Senner V. Jacob Senner, and it
was heard the last thing Friday evening.
The parties were married in Starksboro
in 1875. Here again the ground of ac-
ton was intolerable severity, and Sat