The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-10-16
Celia F. BeIden's Petition to Be
Freed From Her Husband,
James T. BeIden, Allowed by
Justice Frederick w. LaWton
SEVERAL OTHER CASES
WERE DISPOSED OF
Case of Margaret L. Pratt VS.. }.
R. Kane, Administrator of the
Estate of Mary A, .MaIlett 0c-
cupied the Greater Part of the
Afternoon Session

One divorce was heard by Justice
Frederick w. Lawton, at yesterdays
jury waived session of the Superior
Court. A number of matters were dis
posed of before Ais o'clock, yesterday
afternoon, when court adjourned until
9 o'clock this morning.
The first case taken up was Alice l.
Carr VS.. Esther E. Ashworth, Warren
]. Merriam and Charles S. Webster APP
peared for the plaintiff and E. A. d.
Moss and Herbert Parker for the de-
PENDANT. The case was heard, after
which the plaintiff was given oppor-
tunity to amend her bill At o'clock
the matter came up on the bill as
amended Counsel prepared decree
to cancel certain notes and obligations
given by plaintiff to defendant and de-
PENDANT retains real estate which plain
tiff sought to have conveyed to her.
In the case of John D. Barrett VS..
Emily l.. Beaudry the plaintiff did not
appear and was non suited. F. E. Dion
for plaintiff and A. M. Taft for defen-
dant
In the case of jeremiah F. Sullivan
VS.. John T. Tank, Michael T. Flaherty
a proceeding in equity, Michael T. Fla
| herty for plaintiff Dodge and Taft for
defendant, the injunction was dissolved
and non suit was entered.
| In the case of John w. Peacock, ad-
ministrator and appellant, VS.. Ira w.
| Tolman decision was for plaintiff who
sued to recover $26.9S for professional
| services given by Walter j. Peacock,
who was attorney for the defendant in
the collection of a claim. is. Haskell
for plaintiff, A NJ. TAFT fer Defendant.
In the case of Charles L. Pratt ct
ali, proceeding in equity, VS.. the Graf
! ton Electric Company, bill was dismiss
ed by agreement of counsel. ], B.
! Scott for plaintiff and Herbert Parker
| for defendant.
| In case of William Tebo VS.. Michael
| J. Foley ct al, trustees, the court took
| the papers.
The case of Alice Schwartz VS.. 2. A.
| Hubley was continued until the No
vember term of the court.
The case of Margaret L. Pratt VS.. J..
R. Kane, administrator of estate of
| Mary A. Mallett, occupied the larger
part of the afternoon. The plaintiff
| claimed under a certain promissory
note, and $135 for services as nurse and
| otherwise, to Mary A. Mallett in her
| last illness. The defendant introduced
| tNlutuCe ~ SHOW Illdl the UOle was
made upon the death-bed of the de-
ceased and that it was not her purpose
| to pay it if she lived. The court re-
| jected the note without consideration,
and took the papers as regarding the
claim for services. J. r. Kane for de-
| PENDANT; A. w. Curtis, for plaintiff,
At the beginning of the afternoon
| session the divorce libel of Celia M
| Belden of Lancaster VS.. James t. Bel
| den of Chicago was taken up. The IL
bel was uncontested. George Fyfe of
| South Lancaster. brother of the libel
liant, testified that he met Belden in
! Chicago, that he said he had lived with
another woman as his wife until she
| died, and that there was woman in
Belden's rooms at that time, Mrs. Bel
| den said she had not lived with her
husband for many years, that he had
not supported her, and that he had
been several times in prison. A decree
nisi was granted for desertion.