Waterbury Democrat., 1902-03-07
WOMEN IN COURT.
Superior Court Brought Out 8
 Big Gathering.
THE DIVORCE MILL AT WORK


 Had Another Hearing
 Was Reseryed-Legal Fight Over a
 Patent Right to Labor Saving Ma
 chine Decision Reserved in This
 Case Also.
 The supreme court room was crowd ed to-day with women. There were eight divorce petitions on the list for trial, and all the women and few men were, with witnesses or prin- clpals i'll them. After the arrangement of cases for hearing next week, mo- ton for alimony i'll the suit of Mar garet Howard vs Joseph was heard. Attorney Susan O'Neill appeared for the plaintiff and Lowe for the defend ant. Mrs Howard testified that her age is 6i, though she did not look it, and that her health is chronically poor The only indication of i'll health was ill her voice, which was rather weak. Mrs Howard. went on to say that she married the defendant i'll June, 1901. That she isMalmost con- tinually obliged to keep to her room, and that her main support is her daughter, Miss Anna Carle. Her hus- band has, she said $5,500 i'll savings bank in Thomaston and q house worth $4 500. Under cross examination Mrs Howard testified that she came to this city three years ago from Ansonia. Her first husband died ill June, 1900. She frankly admitted that she took advantage of her present husbands temporary absence from the house to OuSt him. This was in November, 1901. He had gone for some medicine for her, and while he was away she threw his bed out on the street and his other personal effects were put on top of it. Her petition for divorce, she said, is based on intolerable cruelty. Miss Carle and Judge CoWell testified for Mrs Howard. The latter testified to an alleged act of i'll treatment on the defendants part, and laughingly added he would have kicked him only for his age. Mrs Dorothy Bradley, North Main street, testified also. Then the defendant took the stand. He said his age is 75 and that for 16 years he has been in the employ of Seth Thomas's Clock company ill Thomas ton. He admitted having property above named, and said that until he was asked by his wife to sign it over to her or her children, cutting off his own, there had been no trouble in the house He denied ever striking or even ill treating the petitioner. Mrs Howard lives on North Main street. Decision was reserved.
 The old trouble between T. H. Hayes and Attorney N. k. Bronson was next reviewed in the form of plaintiffs demurrer to defendants re- ply. This case grew out of the seizure by Mr Bronson of the fixtures, etc, of Gardiner Goold, who kept saloon where Cone's drug store stands. Mir Bronson was principal on bond for the RothschildS Bros of New York, and MT Hayes was surety, though he has always held he never was. Attorney George E. Terry, as the magistrate to whom execution was made, also de- nied ever knowing anything about the matter, though his name as magistrate also appeared on the bond. Mir Hayes, however had to pay $3,500 or so, and now he is suing MT Bronson as prin- cipal on the bond, the Rothschilds having gone into insolvency. Decision reserved.
 A motion for judgment for foreclos- ure against Thomas Lynch by George II. Cowell was continued. The prop erty is situated on Mohawk park and is worth about $1,000, according to the testimony of l.. k. Carter, and is greatly out of repair. The debt is about $35O.
 Assignments: Tuesday, John J. BoIger and T. H. Hayes vs Consoli- dated Railroad company, two cases, (speciaD; Catherine Crimmins vs l Thomas r. Hutchinson. Wednesday, Ann Partree ys Theodore Atwood; c. c. Root vs City of Waterbury and Henry Makepeace ys City of Water bury. Thursdays Nicola Colabrese vs Edward McManus; Elisha Leayen- worth ys Martin F. Lawlor.
 The contention between the Ameri- can Pin company and Frank M John son for the patent right to labor saving machine was. taken up. John son invented q machine intended to deprive thousands of families of the work of sewing hooks and eyes on cards. Plaintiff expended $2O0O on the machine and then stopped work on it, claiming Johnson failed in an alleged contract with them to perfect the machine on an outlay of the above sum. The machine was then 1 in working condition. but not entirely satisfactory to plaintiff Both now claim the rights to the machine. Johnson through Attorney O'Neill, says he is ready to pay back all the plaintiff expended in the development 1 of the instrument, and that other par l ties are ready to take it up. Defend ant replies there must be a limit to experimenting with the machine and that the right to that limit rests with them. When Johnson failed to com plete it within certain limit of time and a certain sum agreed to between both parties, Attorney Beach of New Haven held the machine became the property of the defendant. Decision 1 was reserved
 The divorce mill was then set in operation, occasioning commotion among the, large crowd of women The case of Mary T. Srahan ys James J. 1 Srahan was the first called. De- sertion and cruelty were alleged: Last November Judge George w 1 Wheeler allowed the plaintiff $5 a week alimony pending the hearing of l the case The parties were married June 9, 1889, and desertion took place on March ,, 1895 Mrs Srahan tes- 1 tified that her husband was constantly l intoxicated and often cruel. She maintained herself great part of the 1 time they lived together. Once he shut her out of the house. One child, Mary n auad 10 xvaarc uoS horn fc