Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1903-06-12


King VS.. Oscar S. King. This was an
other drinking and humping" case.
The parties were married in 1894 and for
some years lived in Middlebury and
later in Ripton. According to the LADY,
story the husband was a pretty steady
and hard drinker and when on his tares
would pound her and throw dishes at
her. And when she had little wind
fall in shape of an inheritance he
thought she ought to pass over some of
the money to him for investment in
more drinkables. But she purchased
modest place in Ripton instead and after
that King at various times suggested to
her that it would he a good plan to burn
up the building for the insurance money.
Lawyer LaFleur represented the peti-
toner and the husband did not put in
any defense. The decision was reserved
The first and only criminal trial of the
term was State VS.. Marcus $. Carr, who
was charged with grand larceny alleged
to have been committed by stealing five
! head of calves from Nathan 5. Foote of
| Cornwall in November last. The Jury
after being out an hour and a half
brought in verdict of guilty. The
sentence was not less than two or more
than three years at Windsor and costs
of prosecution.
While the jury We're out in this case
another batch of divorce cases were
brought to the fore The first one was
Frank j. Palmer vs.. Lonah Palmer and
the ground alleged was adultery The
parties lived at 'Richvile. The parties
disappeared from Richville and have
never been seen there since. The de-
cision was reserved Mr.. LaFleur for
the husband; no appearance for the de-
Tense.
Fred O. Brown vs.. Mabel E. Brown
came next, and once more adultery was
the ground set up. This case came
down from Starksboro where the
husband is a wel-to-do farmer. The
parties had been married about dozen
years. Divorce granted on the ground
set up in the petition. Rufus E. Brown
Of Burlington for the petitioner: no de
fence
Emory c. Sterling VS.. Maud V. Sterl-
ing was the next case begun. but it did
not proceed very far before Judge Wat
son Knocked 1t on the head on the
ground of evident collision. The
parties lived in Granville. f. II. Edger-
ton of Rochester for the husband: no
defense.
The last case taken up for the day
was Lizzie Siples V. Harvey Slples In
connection with this case there We're
contempt proceedings pending against
the petitionee for failing to pay temper
airy alimOny ordered by a former term
of court. Lawyer Page stated that the
parties were again living together as
man and wife so the bail in the con-
tempt proceedings was ordered dis
charged and the case entered dscon-
tlnued.
The only remaining civil case set for
jury trial fell by the board for the term.
This was the celebrated case of Sturte-
want VS.. Mccullough and after a few
remarks by Attorney Billiard and Fish.
this entry was made on Clerk Vain
wright's docket: pleas as to jurisdiction
withdrawn; defendant has 40 days in
which to re-plead; case continued
After big days work court at j
o'clock took a recess to the usual hour
Wednesday morning
Wednesday was another busy day. AT
the opening of the morning session the
case of State VS.. Emma Waterman was
continued, and the case of Floyd Perry ct
al. VS.. Paul Tinkham. appellant. was en-
tered, settled and discontinued.
The hearing of petitions for divorce
was then resumed, and that class OF
cases held the main track for the greater
part of the day. The first case called was
Elda NJ. Bring vs.. Charles w. Bring, and
desertiOn was the ground set up This
case hailed from Hancock. where the
parties We're married in 1893. The wife
owned up to being 30 and said her hus-
band was 30. He abandoned her i'm MAY
1900, when she was sick in bed The
divorce was at once granted for wllful
t desertion. Mr. Edgerton for the woman
| no appearance for the husband.
The case of Lucy j. Hunt vs.. John
Hunt followed. The petition was based
, on ntolerable severity and refusal tC
; support. and a bill was granted on the
f latter ground. The woman was alsC
= awarded 5000 alimony, to be paid in in,
stallments of $50 each. f. II. O'Brien OF
? Rutland represented Mrs. Hunt. anC
again there was no defense.
y criminal matter at this point made 4
f brief interruption in the divorce bust
ness. Tuesday afternoon States Attor-
1 ney Donoway filed an information against
DIR. Don \. Bisbee of Bristol charging
2 him with adultery, and Deputy sheriff
( Fred +. Rowley Of New Haven early
. Wednesday morning arrested DR.. Bis,
. bee and brought him into court. The
t details of this case, which resulted in hi,
conviction at the last term. are familiar
} Case continued and bail fixed at $1,000
2 f. l.. Fish appeared for the doctor. At
% 10 o'clock the jurors We're discharged fol
( the term and paid off.
2 \ civil court trial came next, the cast
} being c. \. Chapman vs.. the town OF
e Charlotte, appellant The plaintiff live,
f in Ferrishurgh and claimed damages OF
SO from the defendant town for sheer
alleged to have been killed bv dogs
+ The selectmen of Charlotte refused t,
al a