Worcester morning daily spy., 1898-01-13
AMONG THE COURTS.
SAWYER -HANSCOM CASES COM
PLETED.

Of Edward Hanscom VS.. William H.
Sawyer, both of Worcester, to recover
for alleged damage to business, were
completed and given to the jury at 4 20
in the afternoon. The cases were ac-
tions with an dannum of $4,000 in each
case, it being alleged that the defend
ant closed up the plaintiffs billiard es-
tablishment at 615 Main street, locked
the doors and converted some Of the
property. The sealed verdict will be
read this morning, after agreement has
been reached. William A. Gile for
plaintiff; Frank P. Goulding, William C.
Mellish for defendant.
The next case to be taken UP was
that of Silas H. Loring VS.. town Of
Holden. The case is a petition for the
assessment of damages to the plaintiff s
property by the abolition of a grade
crossing, in March, 1896. The case was
opened, when court adjourned until 9.S0
this morning. Burton w Potter ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Thayer & Cobb
for the defendant.
An entry of Judgment for the plaintiff
for $1,000 has been made in the case of
Aaron Perry VS.. E. d. Smith ct ais, The
case was an action of tort, brought to
recover for the death of James Perry.
The latter was employed by the defend
ant in blasting rocks in the metrop-
oitan water basin district in Berlin;
and, while engaged under Anthony
Kelley as foreman, he was injured by
q premature explosion, and died.
Charles c. Milton for the plaintiff; Hop
kins, Smith & Hopkins for the defend
ant.
The trial list remains unchanged.
SEPARATE MAINTENANCE CASE.
An all days hearing was held in the
probate court Wednesday, in the sensa-
tional separate maintenance case of
Mary A. Dorr VS.. her husband, James
Dorr, an old and prominent manufac-
turer of Holden. From the prominence
of the parties, considerable attention
has been attracted to the case and the
probate court Wednesday was packed
to the aisles with witnesses and inter
ested spectators. Both sides have sum-
moned a large number of witnesses, the
| defense having called 1876. The plaintiff
alleges cruel and abusive treatment as
the grounds for the separate support,
and testified to being struck and hit by
her husband on several occasions. Quite
lot of the testimony was of an un-
healthy nature and unprintable, witt
nesses testifying in regard to the re-
spondent being drunk and in regard to
unnatural acts A servant girl testified
during the afternoon, and also Miss
Ruth Gallagher, but their testimony for
the plaintiff was not specially import
ant. The case viii be resumed at 80
this morning, and it is expected that the
defense will make considerable progress
with their side today. willis E. Sibley,
W. S. B. Hopkins appear for the plaint-
iff; Sheehan & Cutting for the respond
ent
SENSATIONAL DIVORCE CASE.
Wednesday was divorce day in the
jury-waived session of the superior
court before Judge Wardwell. The case
of greatest interest was that of Elsie
Jeens of Fitchburg VS., Harry Morland
Jeens, petition to have the marriage
set aside on the ground that they We're
half brother and sister The parties
We're married in Fitchburg, Dec. 20,
1893, and lived together as man and wife
until September 1896 At that time
their relationship became known to
themselves through the aunt of the pc
titioner, who resides in Wilmington
The petitioner visited her aunt, and up
to that time the petitioner was in igno-
rance of her relationship to her hus-
band. As a young girl, so the petition
er testified, she lived in England with
| a woman whom she always called
"Auntie." This woman told her she
was her aunt, and that her name was
| Grahame. In the same house was the
respondent, Harry Moreland Jeens, and
she always thought he was her cousin,
the son of "Auntie." They came to this
country in December, 1893 when thew
were married. She was at that time
not quite Is years old, and her husband
was 10 years older
There was no evidence that the son
knew of the relationship to his wife or
that he treated her in any way wrong
| fully.
| An effort to introduce a letter from
| "Auntie." admitting the maternity of
the petitioner, was excluded by the
court, as he thought such a fact should
| be proved by a deposition Letters
from the aunt of the petitioner, who
! first told the petitioner of her kinship
with her husband, were also excluded,
as the court thought she should pre-
sent her evidence as a witness. The
court said he would like to have the
facts proved by the attendance of wit
nesses, and ne continued the case to
| give counsel an opportunity to produce
those witnesses.
He has lived in England the greater
part of the time since their marriage,
but made frequent trips to this coun-
try. The case will probably be heard
IN greater detail at some subsequent
session of the court. c. S. Hayden for
petitioner.
OTHER DIVORCE CASES.
Frank A. jameson applied for a d.
vorce from Lizzie E. Jameson of Barre,
on the ground of desertion. They were
married in 1885, and the wife left her
spouse in 1888. The libellee was called
and defaulted. Rufus B. Dodge, Jr.,
for the libellant.
Desertion was the ground alleged in
the suit of Addie e. Rawson VS.. Manley
r. Rawson. Both were married in Mill.
bury. in 1891, and resided there and in
Grafton, working on farms. In 1894 the
husband went to Worcester for work
and has not been seen since. The libellee
was called and defaulted Wood &
Wood for the libellant.
In the suit of William b. Cook oi
Leominster VS.. Mabel P. Cook, adultery
was alleged. The parties were married
In 1889, and the wife left in 1888 Pend
ing the question of the proper service
Of the writ decision was reserved. Chas
S. Hayden for libellant.
The libel of George H. Shattuck VS.
Clara Shattuck, alleging adultery, was
dismissed for want Of sufficient evil
dence A. E. Templeton for libellant
NJ f. Ames for libellee.
In the case of William c. Wheeler VS.
Hannah N. Wheeler Of Lynn, desertion