Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1902-12-19
ADDISON COUNTY COURT,

lIne county court mas continued I'D
session since the close of our last report
land it has been a pretty busy week,
with very little let.up from day to day,
and none of any consequence except the
adjournment from Saturday noon to
Monday morning.
The first case heard Thursday after
noon was the divorce case of Mabel f.
Fuller VS.. Edward w. Fuller. Mrs
Fuller alleged intolerable severity and
refusal to support, and no defense was
offered. The man in the case is well
known in Middlebury, where he was
born and brought up, and for many
years was a printer, being at one time
foreman of the Register composing
room. Latterly he has been employed
in other towns in Vermont and New
York state. A couple of years ago some
differences arose between Mr.. and Mrs.
Fuller, out of which grew this bill for
divorce. The court, after hearing the
unopposed testimony in favor of the
petition, took the papers and reserved
decision. Ira II. La Fleur, of Middle
bury, represented Mrs. Fuller, and Mr..
Fuller ignored the case. The parties
have many friends here who regret the
rupture between them, and have been
looking for a reconciliation.
Another divorce case followed the
above. 1t was that of Asabel II. Hub
bard VS.. Susan w. Hubbard, Whiting
parties, which has been on the docket
two years. and has occasioned a great
deal of talk in this part of the county,
the petitioner being a well-known man
and politician, and for two years recent
ly one of the assistant Judges of the
county court. In this case both parties
had been previously married and each
has children by the former marriages.
This marriage occurred when both had
got well along in years and did not
prove happy one. The charge was
intolerable severity, based mainly on the
alleged Ill treatment by Mrs. Hubbard
of her husband during an illness which
he had two years ago last spring, the
said Ill treatment being principally based
on the alleged fact that Mrs. Hubbard
did not attend to the fire in her hus-
bands room properly at times during
his illness. After the husbands con-
valescence Mrs. Hubbard came to Mid
dlebury for few days and upon her
return found that her things had been
moved from her usband's home to
another house, and that Judge Hub
bard's son Carroll had taken pos session
of the home place. BY the son she was
Informed that she could not stay there
any longer, but that his father should
continue to live there. Mrs. Hubbard was
allowed TO remain for couple of weeks
only, and the parties never lived to-
gether rs man and wife again, although
Judge Hubbard sent her provisions from
time to time. Since the filing of the suit
two years ago the case has been brought
up in one way or another at each sue
ceeding term, but never came to trial on
Its merits until it was called up for hear
ing on Thursday afternoon. The trial
lasted until Friday noon and was hotly
contested on both sides, Judge Hubbard
being represented by former States
Attorney Frank l.. Fish, Of Vergennes.
and W. ii. Davis, of Mlddlebury, while
Mrs. Hubbard's interests were looked
after by Judge W. II. Bliss, of Middle.
bury, and Thomas w. Moloney, of Rut-
land. After consultation of ten min
utes upon the conclusion of the testi-
mcny Thursday noon, the court refused
to grant bill of divorce and the petition
was dismissed. The cross-bil filed bv
Mrs. Hubbard was not pressed by her
counsel, but was discontinued by them
at her request.
The sharpest tussle of the term so far
was begun the first thing after dinner
Friday, the case of the State VS. DIR. Don
A. Bisbee of Bristol and Middlebury,
ou the charge of adultery with Emma
Waterman of Middlebury in her rooms
(COn-iDnar on pa0.