Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-10-28
Startling Tale of Cruelty Told
 In Superior Court.
THE RAY DIVORCE SUIT

Being Heard by judge George W.
 Wheeler-Ars RaS Asks for Free dom from Her Husband, Custody of Their One Child, and One-third of Her Husbands PropFty.
 The contested divorceS case of Mrs Augusta Ray ys John Ray, both of Wateryille. was begun in the superior court to-day before Judge George W. Wheeler. Besides a divorce Mrs Ray asks the custody of their one child, a girl, and one-third of her husbands
 property alimony. The basis of the
 suit Is intolerable cruelty Tn some
 phases the case was very startling. Attorneys Durant and Lauber appear ed for the plaintiff and Pierce of Bristol for the defense.
 Mrs Ray was the first witness and sne festihed that she was married aDour seventeen years ago. During
 the past seven years life with her
 husband was intolerabIe and finally
 on November 19. 1902, she left him,
 being afraid to live with him any
 longer. On one occasion, about Janu-
 ary 2S, 1902, he struck her in the face. On another, he pulled her by the hair, struck her on the head and made the
 blood flow. She ran upstairs to a fam. fly named Tyler. "Oh, it was horrid,n said she. The blood was streaming
 down my back as I ran upstairs. He begged me not to show myself, but had decided I had suffered enough" On another occasion he struck her with book. On still another he
 pulled her by the hair through two rooms until her back was sore. She
 showed the marks of this occurrence
 to her sister. In the summer of 1901 defendant was in Bristol week. He
 returned and turned her out of doors,
 dressed as she was, compelling her to walk to her sisters house seven min.
 utes' distant. He cursed and called
 her the vilest names on that occasion. When she left him finally, and for some time previous defendant had
 been carrying loaded revolver. At this point witness stated she was
 married to Ray when she was seven teen, and their daughter was born
 months before she left him she went
 
 determined to be independent in case
 she should find it necessary to leave her husband She also worked, kept
 boarders and did sewing while living with her husband and the money thus earned was put into a mutual fund and invested fn home. Defendant
 ran barber shop at night and work ed in factory at day. But he was ,<nr4 {xne{ Tn uating infidelity on her part. This
 began some years ago or when their
 daughter was about three years old. He beat her three weeks before she left him.
 Attorney Pierce in cross-examina- tion brought out that the trouble on
 that occasion was over photograph of plaintiff, and defendant tried to
 get the picture from her. She denied that her reason for not giving it to,
 him was because 1t would furnish evil
 dence of where she had been with grocer named Mason. She denied tearing the picture, but admitted the incident occurred after her meeting with Mason on Prospect street.
 The alleged meeting occurred on Sunday afternoon. Planitiff said she rode from Waterville on trolley car got off at St Johns church and walk ed across the green and up Prospect street Soon after meeting Mason, her husband appeared and there was a scene She denied she was arm-ln- arm with Mason when her husbanu
 came upon them, or that Mason ex- claimed Don't shoot" neither did she beg of her husband not to Kill her or ask him to make no fuss She went home with her husband on mat occasion and defendant told his sister he would put plaintiff out of the
 house without ordering her out, but would annoy her so she would nave to leave The night she left him de- fendant implored her to stay, but she had decided she had suffered enough from him. Frequently defendant ob- iected to his wife visiting his sister, Mrs Lane. and he advised the latter to not allow her daughter, Lillian, to accompany his wife because she was an unfit companion for her. He order ed her not to trade with Mason, There was no trouble over Mason. PlaintfH went 10 work in q factory despite her | husbands s protests. She tried to
 please him in every way and when she was sure she succeeded she was rewarded with sneers and curses. He objected to her customers coming to the house when she did sewing. He l claimed she used to go out nights and kept Il record of the nights she was l out. She got this record which she 1 insisted was false. She denied be- ing out five nights In the week. The
 record was introduced at this point
 and witness said she knew her hus' band was keeping some memorandum of that kind. A letter was also intro. duced Plaintiff said 1t was never
 mailed. Defendant found it in her stationery box. It was not addressed. She denied it was for Mason or that
 she ever said 1t was to him. She did
 not know Mason at that time, August,
 1901. In that month defendant put
 her things out of the house and told l har fo follow them Plaintiff rode a