The Worcester spy., 1898-11-18
COURTS.
Another Day
of Divorces.
ONE AGED COUPLE
Has Their Petition Dis
missed by the Court.

In the superior court before Judge
Aiken, divorce cases occupied the en-
tire Thursdays session. One Of the
most interesting suits of the day was
that of Leonard Harrington against
his wife, Calista Harrington, on the
ground of desertion. Both of the par
ties to the suit, who are well known
in this city, are old and gray, and
after nine years of wedlock libel for
divorce resulted.
1t was not the first embarkation of
the couple in the sea of matrimony, but
the latter years of this last union had
not proved so happy as anticipated.
Mr.. Harrington, who brought the petit
tion, said on the stand that he was
"a years Of age, having been married
TO his present wife nine years ago in
this city, and having made his resi-
dence here, being man of retired
means.
Mrs Harrington said in her own de-
eense that she has not deserted her
husband, but that the reason of her
leaving was that he had ordered her
away from the home, and also that he
had struck her. Mr.. Harrington was
somewhat deaf, and in the answers
to the question in the examination, 1t
was suggested that he reply as If he
were talking to Mrs. Harrington, then
all parties would hear.
Mr.. Harrington said that he had
never struck her, and the day she left
his house she had no cause for COM
planning to the police or elsewhere. He
further testified that she had struck
him on the left cheek with pair of
scissors at one time. In the reply to
Mrs. Harrington's claim that he had
forced her to live on a small diet, he
said that he provided a. plenty of
lamb, steak, etc, for her.
AS an example of life with her, he
had been obliged to hire AZ girls in sue
cession, as there was not one to please
his wife, They were satisfactory to
him, but she complained. He said that
he paid the girls $3.50 week, never
less than 81, while Mrs. Harrington tes-
tilted that he would not pay a girl
more than $3.50.
The relations of the family of Mrs.
Harrlngton's son to herself were
touched upon, and other family af-
fairs, including a case where there had
been trouble between the parties to the
In the probate court.
After the evidence had been heard,
Judge Aiken ordered the petition dis
missed. Charles r. johnson appeared
for Mr. Harrington; Eben f. Thompson
for Mrs. Harrington.
In the case Thomas K. sinnott
against his wife, Annie M. Sinnott,
both of this city, which was begun
nesses were examined, who testified in
Mrs. Sinnotts defense. Mr.. Slnnott al
legged drunkenness, and his wife on the
other hand, claimed that Mr.. Sinnott' s
desire for obtaining the separation was
to secure freedom that he might pay
bis attentions to his boarding lady on
Central street After the case had
been heard at length, Judge Aiken dis
missed the petition. Warren j. Mer-
rfam appeared for Mr.. Sinnott; Sulli-
van Ss O'Connell for Mrs. Sinnott.
There was further hearing in the
divorce suit of Peter Degnan, the for
mer well known proprietor of the Com
mercial street saloon, against his wife,
Mary Degnan, on the grounds of drunk
enness. After statements had been
made by counsel, the case was conttn-
ued to the December jury-waived ses-
sion, when sensational developments
are expected in the suit. James f. Me-
Govern and Sullivan & O'Connell, as
counsel for Mrs. Degnan, filed with the
court motion for. alimony for Mrs.
Degnan at SIS a week. Judge Aiken
appointed a hearing at o'clock this
afternoon, when the motion for ali
mony will be considered. II. Spencer
Haskell, Marvin M. Taylor appear for
Mr.. Degnan.
Mrs Mary Z. Andrews petitioned to
retain custody of her child from her
former husband, Charles H. Andrews.
The couple have been divorced for sew
eral years, and Mr. Andrews remarked
about year ago. He had made sever
al threats regarding the possession of
the child, and the threats being renew
ed, Mrs. Andrews applied to the court.
The decree will be granted today.
The case of Addie e. Stanley VS.. To-
bias A. Stanley for divorce on the
grounds of adultery, was granted. Not
contested.
Mrs. Sarah M. Davis wishes divorce
from her husband William B. Davis,
on the grounds of wilful desertion.
They were married December 7, 1866,
and lived together until 1891, at which
time Mrs. Davis purchased a farm at
ollll IllNeI, Mass, III uer own name.
There the husband lived with her for a
while, doing odd jobs about the place,
which was run by Mrs Davis son, Ar
thur. Mrs. Davis paid him. for the
work he did, but he decided to go back
to his former home and engage in his
old business of painting.
He made several visits to his wife,
but stopped only a short time During
this absence he contributed nothing to
Ha nY.f Cf ha for
viding the turkey for Thanksgiving
dinner in 1892. His last visit was in
February of this present year, after
the libel had been served, but Mrs. Da-
Wis saw him only few minutes.
He had not been a particularly kind
husband, and his language had been
mortifying at times.
Only two witnesses were examined
yesterday, and the case will be con-
tin11nd tndaN - -