Waterbury Democrat., 1903-02-20
Nine Unhappy Couples Separat-
 ed By Judge Elmer.
TWO CASES WERE CONTINUED

The Short Calendaf Session Was an Unusually Lively One This Morning
 Another Motion in the Brennan
 Berlin Iron Bridge Go Case.
 Short calendar of the superior court was held to-day. It was the first held 1 of the year and the lists were full of cases. Cases for hearing next week were assigned in this order: Wednes- day-George F. Matz ct ux vs the Turnbull Go ct al; William Lengasta- ken ct ux vs same and Bella Johnson vs the same; Charles F. Richards vs the same and wife vs George H. Peck ct al, two cases; Nicola Calabresse vs Edward McManus.
 l A motion for Judgment as advised l by the supreme court of errors in the case of William Brennan vs the Ber- I lin Iron Bridge Go was granted This
 is Judgment for $3,OOO.
 Decision on a demurrer based on an
 alleged defective complaint in the suit
 of George c. Minor vs the Manfactur- CTS National bank was reserved. This is a sequel to the case of the bank vs William M. Cottle, whose note for $500
 was endorsed by MT Minor. Mr Mi
 nor had to pay the note and this he is now seeking to recover from the bank The note was protested but the parties were not notified of this and the present suit is the conse-
 quence
 A motion for answer in the suit of l Charles N. Crossland vs Elizabeth H. Bell, executrix, was allowed, the an- swer to be filed in two weeks. This is a suit to recover $1,OOO for services
 as a nurse and $500 expended
 An order of additional notice in the divorce suit of Elizabeth D. F. Pier
 pont vs William E. Pierpont was al-
 lowed, and motion for statement
 of the reasons of Julia Scadden's ap-
 peal from probate was also allowed.
 In the divorce case of Augusta Ray
 vs John D. Ray there is contest
 over the custody of girl aged 9
 years, pending the hearing of the di-
 vorce, and also a motion for alimony.
 The matter was partly heard in the
 city court a short time ago. Durdnt
 appeared for the plaintiff and Pierce al of Bristol for the defense The court
 ordered the custody of the child to
 rest in the mother with permission to the father to see her until the case Is
 disposed of. Alimony of $35Og was
 allowed for the support of the child. Domestic contests as the court call ed the long list of divorce cases was next taken up. There were clever cases on the list. Mary s. Daniels vs Albert J. Daniels was the first called
 This case was based on intemperance Plaintiff lives at 13O North Main street
 She was married in 1873 at twelve years of age, left defendant on account of his incorporate habits. She has not seer i, him since He lives in Meriden. decree was granted. Selma c. Booth and Frederick A Booth were married May 12 1897 Booth lives in New Haven. Adultery was the allegation and Lucy A. Well. ! the correspondent Plaintiff left de fendant March 27, 1900 Mrs Booth i, daughter of Christian Hauser De fendant never properly supported her
 William R. Davis of New Haven tes tified defendant and correspondent roomed in his house and on Christmas :. 1901. witness had his suspicious a to the relations existing between then ? confirmed. He ordered them out O l the house immediately. Deputy Sher ' if DeJohn of New Haven testified de T fendant was living with correspondent
 when he served the papers in the cas,
 on him. A son of the cO-responden
 was on hand to testify but the cour
 considered the evidence sufficient ant the petition was granted.
 Five years ago Huntington de , I ic xxyifn a,.4s1 :, were married in October, 1893. De fendant went to Dakota in 1895 ant I returned about year ago. He is nov l, employed on the Naugatuck railroad : He was arrested for non-support ant ? this it is believed caused him to leav, 5 her. The petition was granted an, plaintiffs maiden name restored. ; H. A. Daniels and Mildred c. Dan
 iels were married in December. 1896 l and parted October 4, 1898, defendan : leaving town. Plaintiff knew of n : reason for her leaving Daniels is : we'll known typesetter. Petition wa . granted
 Jeremiah Compton, who lives in Oak r vile was the next petitioner The de g fendant was Catherine Compton The, . were married in 1896 in New Jerse-
 and a few months after the marriag
 defendant took up with MT Hill t
 whom she is married now Four chil
 ,dren have resulted from that union :, Petition was granted.
 :, The stand was hardly vacated by tn last case when Charles J. Eggleston' petition was taken up. Eggleston sai, : that after the marriage himself and hi wife boarded, Then he bought house : but his wife did not like housekeepin, and so he promised her they wonl ' go boarding again. She got impatien 2 and one evening when he returne, l home he found the house cleared of tn
 furniture and his wife gone. She nov
 lives with her mother in WateryilIe
 The marriage took place on October 1 t 1897, and in July, 1S99 the alleged de y sertion took place. A decree was al = lowed. III Ida Ingraham vs Homer Ingra han 1 was the next case. Intolerable cruelt f was alleged. These parties were mar v ried in 1899 and lived together abou
 two years. Another woman was in tn
 IHr xI~s =,