The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1898-11-17

the present jury-WaiVed session, is a
graduate of Dartmouth, in the class of
IA Webster Thayer, Esq, the counsel
for the libellant, is a member of the
class of 80, and Dr. Edward 7. Trow-
bridge, who was the witness in the case,
graduated from Dartmouth in the class
of 81. The divorce was granted.
Court opened at 9.15 O'clock, owing
to the special assignment of one of the
cases. There were several cases waere
the parties are Of local prominence,
and the ebbing of the tied was attend
ed with a large audience of witnesses
and spectators.
One of the most important cases of
the day was the divorce suit of Flor
ence A. Kilbourn (nee Forehand),
against John F. Kilbourn for desertion
and failure to provide suitable and
sufficient support. Mrs. Kilbourn is a
member of the well known Forehand
family of this city, and appeared in the
court room with her brother, Frederick
Forehand, of the Forehand Arms COM
pany.
Mrs. Kilbourn took the stand in her
| own behalf, and on examination by her
counsel, Charles M. Thayer, stated that
she was married to Mr.. Kilbourn, who
was connected with the service Of the
| Forehand Arms~Co., on October n,
! 1885, by the Rev. Moses H. Harris, D.
D. pastor of All Souls Universalist
church.
They lived together in Rutland, VT,
for one year, and then returned to
Worcester, making their residence here
for three years. From here they moved
to Boston, where they remained for six
months; then to Providence, where
they lived together for three months.
~,k l. IA L.. +I,i1 -
of 1881, that Mr.. Kilbourn deserted his
wife, and going away with bag and
baggage to other chimes
Mrs. Forehand testified that while in
Providence she and her husband had
boarded, and had not kept an indie
pendent household of their own. From
the time of their marriage to the date
when Mr.. Kilbourn left her at Provi-
dence, her father, Sullivan Forehand,
of the Forehand Arms Company. had
in the main supported them, and she
had been dependent upon him for her
maintenance. Sullivan Forehand had
paid their rent and other incidentals.
When Mr.. Kilbourn left her he did not
| provide her with any money, accord
ing to the story of Mrs Kilbourn, and
took all of his belongings with him.
Since 1891 she had made her residence
in this city, some of the time living
| with her father, and the rest of the
time boarding in the city. One child,
a girl of 11years, was the result of their
union.
Frederick A. Ferehand testified that
he had understood that Mr.. Kilbourn
| had left his sister, and that there had
never been any request from Mr. Kill
bourn to have his sister to again live
with him.
With the completion of the evidence
Judge Aiken granted decree nisi for
| = al I,n
custody of the little girl. Charles NJ
Thayer appeared for Mrs Kilbourn.
The next case of public interest was
the divorce suit of Amy Morse of Mill
bury against Charles H. Morse of that
town, one of the we'll known Morse
family, on the ground of drunkenness.
Mrs. Morse, who was prettily attired in
a most becoming gown, told the UNI
happy story of their married life. The
first indication of her husbands pre-
objection for drink was noticed two
years after their marriage. To cure the
habit me had taken the Kelley cure
twice, but without avail. Two years ago
life with him became uncomfortable, and
she left him, now supporting herself.
Among the we'll known people who tes
titled were Charles d. Whitney, F. A,
Lapham, DIR. j. r. Lincoln, and officer
c. H. Smith, all of whom corroberated
the evidence as to the liking of Mr..
Morse for intoxicants.
A decree nisi for gross and confirmed
habits of intoxication was granted by
Judge Aiken, Mr.. Morse being called
land defaulted.
Thayer & Cobb appeared for Mrs.
Morse.
| Gross and confirmed habits Of intoxi-
cation and cruel and abusive treatment
| rxrea all
M Dowd against Patrick A. Dowd, a
we'll known newspaper man of this city,
and formerly of the Telegram.
The couple We're married in June,
1898, and lived together for three years.
Judge Aiken granted a decree nisi for
gross and confirmed habits of intoxica-
ton, Mrs. Dowd being allowed to re-
sumo her maiden name of Burke
John II. Meagher appeared for Mrs.
lDowd.
Emma J. shattuck of this city sought
separation from Walter S. Shattuck, on
the ground of gross and confirmed haD-
| its of intoXication, The parties were
| married in this city in 1890 and Mr..
Shattuek was formerly a fireman on the
old Worcester 81 Shrewsbury railroad.
A decree nisi on the grounds alleged
was granted.
Thayer & Cobb appeared for Mrs.
| Shattuck.
Gross and confirmed habits of intox-
ication were also alleged in the libel of
Mary |. Boothroyd against James
Boothroyd, all of this city Mrs.
Boothroyd was granted the separation
on the grounds stated. allowed $50 ALI
mony and given the custody of her
minor child. Sullivan & O'Connell APP
peared for Mrs Boothroyd
4
In the case of Nehemiah Ordway
against Amelia A. Ordway, both of this
city, desertion was alleged. The parties
were married in this city in 1894, and
lived together 10 days, when Mrs Ord
way disappeared, being now of parts
unknown. A decree nisi for desertion
was granted by Judge Aiken.
John b. Scott appeared for Mr.. Ord
way.
Desertion was also alleged in the
case of Daniel c. Putnam against Mary
l.. Putnam of this city, and a decree
nisi on the grounds stated was granted
by the court, the libellee being called
and defaulted. Arthur NJ Taft for Mr..
Putnam.
Csroee and confirmed habits of intox