Waterbury Democrat., 1901-03-29

no such interest in sdiyorce cases as 1t had in others. and he would 1 be pleased to have defendant eXamlne l the witnesses. Mir Dillon occupied chair behind his children, two sons and a daughter. The petition was based on intolerable cruelty. Pistols, axes, midnight disturbances and brawls of various natures constituted the testimony. Nineteen years ago the Dilions were married in Winsted, and lived in contentment until few years ago. when they first separated. They then took their differences to the courts and for year or two they appeared at intervals in the city, pro bate and district courts i'll actions of various kinds This is the last act in the drama of their infelicity. From the outset sympathy was with Mrs Dillon, and to-day, while she was on the stand she sprinkled her testimony with her tears and her children wept considerably. even the boys. Mir Dill Ion was asked by the court if he de- sired to question his wife, and he mumbled some reply, which was con- sidered a negative. Mrs Dillon then gave way to Dr E. W. Mcdonald. The doctor testified to attending Mrs Dill lon for nervousness. She was in con- stant fear of her life from her hus- I band. Witness found knife defend- l ant had in concealment to attack his wife with. Mrs Mary Fleming was neighbor of the Dillons when they lived on South Wilson street. The Flemings were practically obliged to leave the neighborhood on account of l Dillon's threats.
 | Judge Lowe testified to proceedings in the probate court brought by Dillon for the custody of the children, and to Dillon losing S1.O00 equity he had in the house and lot the family occu- pied on South Wilson street. All he | owns now is an old horse and wagon. The petition was granted with the GUS tody of the children. Dillon then sprang into the witness stand. but spoke so eXcitedly he could not be un derstood Thus were the Dillons after nineteen years of married life, parted.
 Lena A. Gardiner sought divorce from Edward E. Gardiner on the grounds of desertion. These parties were married in Providence. k. l.. on May 1, 1895. On March 10, 1896. defendant abandoned petitioner be- cause she would not go to work. He told her he married her because he wanted her to support him. She re- fused to do this. He spent all his idle time drinking. except his nights. which he devoted to abusing her. When he
 went away he took rything, leav- ing her without even a bed to sleep on or a penny to buy bread. Defend ant was a paperhanger. For the past four wears petitioner has lived in Wa terbury Edward T. Ford. a saloon keepre, in whose family petitioner is employed. testified for her. Walter r.. Ford. brother Of the last witness. testified also. The Fords live in Wa terville Plaintiff has one child. A decree was allowed.
 Margaret Lawlor vs Francis LaWlOr
 was next. The basis of this petition was intemperance and cruelty. Attor- ney Beckwith presented this case. On June '. 1892, the parties were married
 in this city. For q time they lived on
 Walnut street. Then they moved to
 Bishop street, keeping house there.
 Regularly on pay nights defendant be- came intoxicated and would abuse plaintiff. From Bishop street they
 moved to Vine street, then to Railroad
 
 He gave up his work and went to the
 h:I. In some of the acts of cruelty
 testified to knives. raZors, punches of
 burning paper, lighted oil lamps and
 hot water figured. The petition was
 granted and also the custody of four
 minor children.
 Five women immediately took the
 chairs just vacated by Mrs Lawlor and . her friends. They Were Alice R. But ton and her friends. Mrs Button lives
 in Naugatuck. She petitioned for al yorce and the custody of her two m nor children, aged l3 and 12 years re spectively, on the ground of intolerablt cruelty. Plaintiff was represented by Senator Kennedy. She worked in {; rubber factory in Naugatuck ant
 earned about $1O week. Her huS band was q chronic ObiectOr. He sel : dom worked. giving all his time tt ''kicking.' The parties were married : in July, 1SS6. They parted thrc' , months ago, petitioner being no longer able to stand defendants abuse. They } lived together until this suit was in : stituted. May Webster and Mrs Nel [ lie Stevenson, sisters of petitioner, ant l Mrs Annie l.. Chase testified. The pc ) titiOn was granted.
 The petitions of Mary Is. Stockin:
 vs Louis H. Stocking and Max Kaper
 man vs Sarah Kaperman were post :, pOned to next week.
 Court then adjourned to Monday a : Il 30 o'clock.
 , While the divorce mill was poundin F out separations in the superior cour
 to-day, Attorney John O'Neill wa
 engaged reading the courts memoran :. dun of the judgment in the case o Brennan vs the Berlin Iron Bridge Cc Judge Thayer writes good plain han, I in general, but occasionally a word i l difficult to get at This appeared t 2 be. the difficulty with Mr ONeill. II t laid aside the paper and put on hi t coat. evidently having given up tryin e to decipher the writing as a bad jol r Then he seemed to have reconsidere
 for he tackled the paper again. A ! last he gave it up again and sought tn | 11,.f'c ,fc.fn