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


The husband had failed to find con-
nubial bliss with an intoxicated spouse,
and he sought separation. A decree
nisi on the grounds alleged was grant
ed, Mrs. Pilet being called and default
ed. lockwood Hoar appeared for Mr..
Pilet-
In the divorce case of Peter Degnan,
the former well known proprietor of
the Commercial street saloon, against
his wife, Mary w. Degnan, James F.
McGovern and Sullivan & O'Connell
filed a demurrer to the libeh of Mr..
Degnan, the objection being that the
indictment in the libel was not accord
ing to law, the phrase addicted" as
applied to the use of intoxicating
drinks being unsanctioned by
the statutes. The demurrer was all
lowed by the court, but further H.
Spencer Haskell, counsel for Mr.. Deg
nan, was also allowed to amend the
libel so as to cover the objection raised
in the demurrer
The case will be heard today probab-
Iy, and much interest will centre in the
suit, as it is to be bitterly contested.
H. Spencer Haskell appears for Mr..
Degnan; James f. McGovern, Sullivan
& O'Connell for Mrs. Degnan.
Desertion was alleged in the case of
Gertrude Pendergast against Albert
Pendergast, both of this city. The
parties we're married in Worcester on
Washington's birthday 1891, and lived
successfully in Worcester, Lowell, New
ton Upper Falls, Lynn and Ashburn-
ham. For five years they resided at
Newton ITnnaVs oil
ton took place, her husband leaving
her and never reappearing or sending
for her to live with him, it being sup
posed that he is now in Lowell A de-
cree nisi for deSertion was granted
Mrs. Prendergast being allowed the
custody Of her child. Marvin M. Tay-
Tor for Mrs Pendergast.
In the divorce suit of Lillian M. King
of this city against her husband, JOS
eph J. King, a tale of fiendish and bru-
tai cruelty was related to the court,
which revealed in all it's depths mans
mhumanity to woman. Mrs King, who
is very attractive woman and was
most modestly and becomingly dressed.
related life Of Is years of marital for
bearance and masculine brutality on
the part of her husband.
A decree nisi for cruel and abusive
..
was allowed the custody of her minor
child. Mr.. King was called and de-
faulted. Thayer & Cobb appeared for
Mrs. King.
Drunkenness and cruel and abusive
treatment were alleged in the case of
Flora j. Damon of Holden against
Joseph r. Damon. The parties were
married in November, 1894, in Holden.
and from tha tiYna Of fbair 14f.i q crfa
Mrs. Damon claimed that her husband
had been drunk had threatened to kill
her, had kicked her because she would
not support him. Mrs. Damon's moth
er corroborated her daughters testi-
mony. Pending further evidence, the
case was continued to the next session.
Warren ]. Merriam for Mrs. Damon.
Mrs Harriet w. Locke of Millbury
sought separation from her husband
on the ground of desertion. Her mar
rage with Charles T. Locke was her
second alliance. They We're married in
Seabrooke, N. H, where Mr.. Locke had
property interests, and in the latter
part of 1894 he deserted her going to
California, where he refused to support
her. A decree nisi for desertion was
granted. William A. Gle appeared for
Mrs. Locke.
The last case Of the day was the CON
tested case of Thomas K. Sinnott of
this city against his wife, Annie M.
Sinnott, on the ground of drunkenness.
Mrs Sinnott contested the libel on the
ground that Mr.. Sinnott wanted to get
rid of her to pay his attentions to
Mrs Leahy of Central street. T.. Bruil-
let. Frank Provost and All Butler testi-
fed as to Mrs. Sinnott's habits, and
Mrs Anne Tower and Miss Anne 6.
McKenna q little girl of Is years, spoke
in Mrs. Sinnotts defence.
The case will be resumed this morn
ing at 915 o'clock Warren ]. Merriam
for Mr. Sinnott; David f. O'Connell for
Mrs. Sinnott.
Today divorces will be heard, the list
being cleared The civil cases in order
for Friday are:
2747 ton trial. -Rundstrom VS.. Pond.
Potter Hubbard, Sullivan & O'Connell.
2S24 (on triaD-Rundstrom VS.. Pond.
Potter; Hubbard, Sullivan & O'Conneil.
3203-Cournyn admir- VS.. Cournyn.
Taylor, McGoyern; Sullivan & O'Con-
nell.
5So-Aben VS.. Moore ct al. Gle;
Wheelock, Cochran.
1279-Fay, exor., VS.. Fay. Samuel Fl.
Smith, Boston, c. F, Choate, Jr.; James
W. Mcdonald, Boston.
2S46-McGuinness VS.. Fairbanks ct
all c. M. Thayer; Gle
1902 Fairbanks vs. Armstrong ct al.
Gile; c. NJ. Thayer.
Fairbanks VS.. Dorman. Gile;
C. F. Stevens.
3142-Parkhurst VS. Fales, admr.
Kent & Dewey; pro Sc
S177-Douglass VS.. Roberts. G. w. An
derson, Boston; NJ. f. Farrell, Boston.
31S0-Lincoln exor., VS. Rush P S.
Maher, Boston; T. J. Barry, Boston
3252-Parker. receiver. VS.. Reynolds.
H. Parker. G. S. Taft; I. j. Barry,
Boston.