Waterbury Democrat., 1902-02-28
] DIVORCES BY JUDGE GAGER|
Charles G. Belden Was Granted
 One This Morning.

Decision Was Reserved in Manning
 Case-A Number of Cases Were
 Assigned for Trial and the Case of
 F. H. Hayes and N. R. Bronson
 Was Taken Off the List.
 The principal business done by Judge Gager at short calendar ill the superior court this morning was hear Ing divorce petitions. Three were heard and they occupied the greater part of the forenoon.
 The following cases were assigned Tor trial in this order: Tuesday. Dime savings bank Vs Paul F. McAIeny: !. J. Curtin, appeal from decision of the county commissioners; Charles G. Root ys city of Waterbury. Wednes- day. Theodore Caldwell ys George H. Cloves; Ann ]. Partree ys Theodore Atwood; 4. N. Burritt ct al. and the same ys Angelo c. Burritt. Thursday. Elisha Leayenworth vs Martin F. J LaWior; Edward Curtin ys Consoli- dated Railroad company. Special for q week from Tuesday, John J. Bolger and Thomas H. Hayes ys the Consoli- dated Railroad company. two cases.
 The ease of Thomas II. Hayes ys N. R. Bronson was taken off the list motion to produce the books and papers in the suit of Partree vs Atwood was allowed, and goes into effect q week from to morrow. Hear ir1.r INa f0x aJ; 41<. divorce petition of Margaret Howard ys Joseph Howard was continued to next week
 Diyorces were then taken up.
 Elizabeth Hopkins vs Jesse Hopkins. Desertion was alleged in this case Mrs Hopkins testified that she was married to the defendant on Septem- Der Is, 1896. Soon after defendant took a remarkable dislike to work. The marriage took place in Brewsters, N Y, and the couple went to live in Mill Plains, village near by. They remained there for a time, and it was here defendant took an oath against work, or evidently so. After year or so they came to live with the petition CTS mother in this city. Petitioners step-father, Christian Birk would not have the defendant around the house loafing while his wife was working. He did not consider this a fair ar engagement and told defendant to get to work or get out Defendant did neither. Finally petitioner got him q job and he apparently went to see about it. That was the last seen of him. This took place on June 20, 1898. Nothing has been seen or heard of him since. Petitioner worked for q time at the Scovill Manufacturing company's Her petition, which was presented by Judge Peasley, was granted. Christian Birk and Everett R. Perkins testified for her.
 The next was that of IneZ II. Man. ming vs William H. Manning. Intol- erable cruelty was alleged. The par ties to this matter were married i'll Watertown on October 21. 1900. They lived together three weeks. Plaintiff said it was impossible to live with her husband: no woman could do it. The evidence was not fit for publicatie There were half dozen witnesses but only three were examined. Arthur G. Jacob, 50 Wall street, surprised the court by his testimony. He said he knew the petitioner three weeks and l he confided something to her which 1 appeared to surprise the court. Ran dall R. Pierce, employed at the Clock | factory and best man at the wedding, was only q minute on the stand. At | torney Delaney, who had the case, 1 tried to prove it by reputation of the i defendant but the court would not | admit such evidence. However, Rob- | ert $. Herr, q witness, whispered MT l Delaney that Herbert Stanislaus Wrol- | ley of Center street would furnish the l necessary facts. He was accordingly | sworn and testified, but the court was not satisfied He said he had heard | the evidence where he had been sit | ting in the back of the room. The | court seemed surprised at this, for | those at the press table could not hear it and Wrolley was at least 20 feet | further away. Decision was reserved.
 The third and last case was that of | Charles G. Belden, the well-known tailor, against GeOrgiana. Desertion was the allegation here, and the cus- tody of two minor children was ask ed MT Belden stated that he was married on July 16, 1890, and that his wife deserted him on August 2S, 1898. The summer of that year defendant with the two children passed a few l months in the neighborhood of Litch- field. One day she surprised plaintiff by returning and saying that she did not wish to live with him any more. Plaintiff was astounded. He inform ed her of the scandal that would en- sue from a separation and implored her for the sake of the children, at least, to reconsider her evident deter mination But she had made up her mind and on the above date she left f11fi that defendant had cultivated during her sOjourn in Litchfield a strong at tachment for some other man. He found that when she left town she was accompanied by this man, and that she lived with him on 139th street in New York. That was the last he heard of her. The petition was given support by testimony from the plain tiff's brother, Edward H., and John T. Collyer, the photographer, and all 1t asked was granted
 The hearing of the case of Oscar w. Cornish against the Geary Bros for $1,OOO for wages was then taken up. Attorney Russell appears for the defendants and Judge Peasley for the Defendants admit that some money is due Cornish for commissions on sales of pianos and collection Cornish holds that he was engaged on a salary; that one of the defendants told him to ask for money