The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-10-13
COURT ADJOURNS.
Many More Divorce
Libels Heard By
Judge Stevens.
CONTESTED CASES CONTINUED.
The Westboro Bakery Case
is Continued for a
Settlement.
CONTESTED CASES CONTINUED.

heard by Judge Stevens yesterday
morning and the docket of uncontested
cases was pretty well cleared up. The
contested cases were continued until
the November term.
In the libel of Anna L. Ford VS..
Charles E. Ford Of Milford, the allega-
lion was adultery. The lIbellant had
been married for II years and had three
children. The husband is said now to
be in the west somewhere. A decree
nisi was granted by the court and the
custody of the children was given to
her. R. E. Jaffray of Boston appeared
for the libellant.
Eva M Dickey of Athol asked for
divorce from her husband, Frank 0.
Dlckey, ON the ground of desertion. The
couple were married in 1891. r. E.
Dickey was counsel for the libellant. A
decree nisi was granted.
Mabel A. Reese of Leominster sought
TO be separated from Oscar e. Reese.
They were married in 1887, and few
years later the husband left his wife
Tor four years. Then he returned to his
Wife, and they lived together for more
than year. According to the testimo-
ny, Mr.. Reese was cruel and abusive,
and left her time and time again with
out food or clothing. A decree nisi was
granted and the custody of the minor
child awarded to the mother. ]. H. p.
4 Dyer appeared for the libellant.
Frederick A. Sawyer asked for di-
vorce from his wife, Ella L. Sawyer,
alleging adultery. The couple were
married in 1889, and in 1897 and 1898
her conduct was made known to her
husband, and he refused to live with her
longer A decree nisi was granted by
f the court, and the custody of the minor
+ child given to the father. City Solicitor
Rugg appeared Cor the libellant
Ella Marcoux sued for a divorce
from her husband Alfred Marcoux.
Since their marriage they lived in va
rious, places, and she said her hus-
band, almost from the wedding day,
had been unkind to her, and at last de-
serted her. She earns her own living,
working in Clinton. AS there was some
doubt about her having lived in Massa-
chusetts for five years, Judge Stevens
reserved his decision.
Edna M. Thayer, in her libel VS.. Al
len Thayer alleged non-Support and
gross and confirmed habits of intoxica-
ton. The couple were married in 1886
and ever since marriage her husband
has been confirmed drunkard. He
was also cruel and abusive, and at last
was granted S. B. Taft appeared for
the libellant.
+. e. Deon, counsel for Duty ]. S.
Shippee in his suit against Flora A.
Shippee, filed his amended libel, which
specifies the time and place certain
acts were alleged to have taken place.
The libed will be herd at the November
term.
Harry Brooks vs. Augusta L. Brooks
ig continued 1,ptfi NOyar1 DeY. q
libel of Lefrances T. Fraser VS.. John
w. Fraser was also continued.
After the divorce libels were heard
the case of Norwood ct al. VS.. Jennie
6. Lathrop came up for hearing. Be-
fore it could be finished the time came
for the noon adjournment.
In the afternoon the court came in at
2.15, and the hearing in the case of
Norwood ct al. VS.. Lathrop was taken
up again, which was continued from
the morning session. Arguments were
made by counsel for both sides. M. M
Taylor appeared for the plaintiff and
]. B. Scott for the defendant. The case
was heard first before an auditor, and
the ruling of the court was asked for
as to certain questions Of law and con-
struction and confirmation of the au-
ditor's report. The matter came before
an auditor on a contract for a certain
building to be built for Jennie G. Lath-
rop by the firm of Norwood & Morton,
contractors The amount of the con-
tract was about $4,000.
M. M. Taylor called the courts at
tention to certain features in the build
ing contract, and reserved his rights
on the motion for certain rulings
prayed for by the defendant. The
court reserved decision.
The next case was Frost VS.. Cobb.
w. q. Sibley appeared for the PLAINTIFF;
Charles B. Frost of Westboro and
Thayer & Cobb represented the defend
ant. According to the bill of COM
plant, the plaintiff leased certain
premises Of the defendant. A man
named Bates hired the other tene-
ment in the same block with the
plaintiff and used the same for a
bakery. The plaintiff, Frost, alleges
that the proximity of the bakery in
lures his furniture business and great
" annoys him, by reason of various
odors arising from the bakery. Bates,
swer, denies that his baking Injuries
any one and says that all odors are
carried off by modern appliances
Plans and photographs of the premises
in Westboro were exhibited to the
court.
The case was to have been heard
before Judge Hopkins on a bill in equi-
W,
was not heard.
The plaintiff was sworn, and testified
as to his business in Westboro, and said
that originally a grocery store was next
his store, but now there is a bakery
in it's place. He spoke of the heat and
ctlors which he claimed came from the
} bakery. He was subjected to rigid
cross-examination by Mr.. Thayer
Frank w. Ferber of Westboro was
the next witness He testified as an
insurance agent that the insurance
rates on the building had been raised
since the bakery was put in. He also
spoke of certain odors arising from the
bakery that were noticeable in the store
Of Mr.. Frost. He said the odors gave
him slight nausea when he passed
through the store AS Mr.. Thayer was
about to begin the cross-examination,
Judge Stevens called the counsel to the
bench and had a conversation with
them. And it was decided to continue
the case Sc that Mr.. Cobb, the owner,
or Mr.. Bates, the lessee, can make such