Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-12-18
MRS. BUCK LOSES
Court Says She Must Pay For
 Those Shoes.
MIR. BUCK GETS OFF EASY.

Shoe Dealer Fitzmaurice Must Pay
 Bucks Costs in the Case-The Jury
 Reached It's Conclusion After Very
 Short Deliberation.
 It was late yesterday afternoon when Judge Welch adjourned the hear ing of the case Of E'itzmaurice vs Buck in the district court, MT Buck was on the stand all the afternoon. most of the time under cross eSamin- alton by Attorney O'NeiH. He said that for the past five years he was away from home most of the time and that his occupation is a conner cial traveller. Up to last year his sal ary was $1,5o0 a year, when it was increased to $1,sOO. Marion, the cid est daughter, who was very well known here through her skill as an amateur artist, was sent to school to the Drexel institute in Philadelphia, and witness paid for her education there until he concluded he could do so no longer He told the girl how his circumstances were at that time and concluded it was best she should stop. But Mrs Buck determined oth- erwisa and she borrowed 1000 on her interest in her home i'll order to keep Marion at school At that time. how ever. witness had $500 in hank, though Mir O'Neill said the amount was S1,- 800. for the rainy day,
 Mrs Buck did not tell witness about borrowing that $1.O00 until some time later. He was not at Marions we'd ding, which took place a year ago last November Her husband is an cleo trical engineer and is now ill Con stantinople His wife is supposed to be with him. .t
 About the time Mrs Buck borrowed the $1,O0O witness said things at home were not as well as they used to be. But they were not shabby as Mir .O'Neill tried to show. Witness was rather shabby at that time in his ap- parel because he could not stand the drain on his income.
 Witness knew Mrs Bucks expenses were larger than her income. He. could not say how. he knew of this. One day the maid informed him there was no coal in the cellar and he bought B few tons. Mrs Buck did not. complain to him and he knew abso-' liitely nothing about the expenses of the house. He was nominally boarder ill his own house, though he was absent about seyen-tenths of the time. If her income was not suff- cient, he said, it w;ass because or her personal eytrayagaDces
 Enumerating instances of his wife's extravagances, MT Buck mentioned q bill for SPA for facial massage. The first he heard of the bill for shoes was in March, 1902, about 2 month after. the divorce was granted. He was in Erie, Pa. at that time, and the writing on the envelope was in Mrs Bucks hand showing that she received the bill first and then sent it on to him, notwithstanding that they had been parted by the courts at that time. Mir Fitzmaurice denied he had ever been notified by AIr Buck or anyone else until 1902 that he did business with Mrs Buck at his own risk. while Mir Buck stated he notified NIT Fitzmau- rice. Reid X Hughes and other houses that he would not be responsible for her debts. He said he informed them that he had given his wife q liberal al lowance and she would have to pay her billa out of it.
 Mrs Buck was not present. She is also a defendant Her deposition was read. She is now believed to be living in Philadelphia and working in the WanamalSer store there The case closed at ; o'clock
 The jury took the case at ? o'clock. Toward the close it developed into a three-cornered suit. Guilfoile and Root, representing Mir Buck. MT O'Neill for Mrs Buck and MT Russell for, the plain tiff.
 The verdict was given against Mrs Buck for the full amount S103.5O. with interest. making it S113.50 and the plaintiff must pay MT Bucks costs.