Waterbury Democrat., 1901-05-17
D|VORCES BY HE BUSHEL
Judge Elmer Granted Separa-
 tion to Eight Couples To-Day.

Judge Elmer Granted Separa-
 tion to Eight Couples To-Day. Waterbury is Trying to Outdo Greater
 New York-Intemperance, Desertion
 and Infidelity the Main Causes One
 Unfortunate couple Must Wait An
 other Week Before Being Torn
 Asunder.
 The superior court opened promptly at 10 o'clock to-day. Judge Elmer pre- sided. There were only two motions on the short calendar, and these went oyer to next week. Assignments were made as follows: Tuesday, Kelly ys the city, Lombardo vs Miller Coal company; Wednesday, Anson l.. Hamm vs Waterbury Manufacturing company; Thursday, Fuller vs Consoi- dated Railroad company and Berube vs the same.
 Divorces were then taken up. There were nine cases on the docket, an un- usually large number. The first one called was that of Sarah B. Eckler ys Mitchell E. Eckler. This was based on desertion and habitual in- temperance. It took only three min utes to hear, during which two wit nesses were heard They were Mrs Dora Munson and Mrs Carrie Gibson. They knew defendant 10 or 12 years, 611riTO rxr1ai0h flnu him Der. The petition was granted.
 The parties to the second case were Mary D. Miller vs Henry Miller. This couple was married in 1887 in Sey- mour. They lived together three years. Then the defendant deserted plaintiff and took unto himself another wife in New Haven, for which he was sentenced to IS months in the state prison. Petition was granted.
 The case of William G. Parsons vs Bertha NJ. Parsons was a queer one In Bridgeport on August 31. 1897 they were married. and few days after the bride took French leave and never returned. Parsons lives in Nau- Patuek. For three months he paid her S3 week. Then she refused his money and to friends and relatives who endeavored to bring about rec onciliation she told she did not care for her husband. and would never live with him. She is now supposed to be living in New Milford. Sheriff Rigney who once visited her with the olive branch. she threw out of doors. Peti- tion was granted.
 The parties in the next case are well known. Mary and Frank Cullum. Cruelty and intamperanee was the basis of this petition. Last May the couple parted after six or seven years of mortal strife. Mrs Cullum. when ever she appeared against her husband in the city court. always won the sym pathy of the officials by her neat ap- pearance and the inevitable story of cruelty Officers Brearton and Kee- gan testified in support of her peti- tion Likewise Mary Guilfoile of PSI Baldwin street
 hsea prenverbrdaaeenshd dteanhgai,yc
 Mrs Cullum's own story was simply a repetition of that which was worn threadbare in the city court. Her pc tition was granted without hesitation and the custody of her children, also.
 With very little variation the cir cumstances of the Cullum case could be applied to that of Hattie E. Brad ley vs Willis G. Bradley. except that desertion was the alleged cause. h. temperance. however, led to the deser- tion. Petition was granted.
 Desertion, also. was the allegation in the suit of Addie McDougal ys All exander McDougaL Way down in Nashville, Tenn, these parties were married on September 10, 1889. They lived there six years. Then they came &s@ TTT s,1 EoT0 n.e,T took his wife to the home of her broth CT, and left her there. Then he dis appeared and was gone some time be- fore it was accepted as a fact that he had gone forever. Petitioner then got work in a factory and has thus sup ported herself ever since. Why de- fendant left was not accounted for in the evidence of the case The bonds of matrimony were stricken from Mrs McDougal.
 Substantially the same story was told in Wilson G. Bradley's petition for freedom from Emma Bradley. Mr. Bradley recalled after one or two at tempts that his wife's maiden name was Hubbell. He could not explain why she left. So far as he knew she had no reason. She had good home and all that one of her or his circum- stances allowed. They were married in 1882. and on May 14. 1888, defend ant disappeared. One of the witnesses threw a good deal of light on the cir cumstances. Another man was the cause The man lived few doors from where the woman and her hus- band lived, and one night she took up with him, and short time after she eloped to New York with him. This man saw her at the Danbury fair with the man of her second choice whose name is Williams. The petition and the custody of one minor child was granted.
 George Alderman asked for di- vorce from Anna M. Alderman on the grounds of infidelity with one James Dews. The story of this case is so well known it needs no retelling. The parties were married in 1874. and part ed several times, and finally last Jan rTnr