Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1903-1917, 1904-04-15
SUPERIOR COURT.
Divorces Granted and Other
Business Was Tran
sacted To-Day.

TOT 1uJ uFleS received In an aSSault ana
battery was resumed in the superior
court to-day before Judge Thayer and
the jury.
Evidence for the plaintiff was to
the effect that Mrs Nichols was SER
iously assaulted by the defendant. and
that she is yet suffering from the effect
OF the assault. The occurrence took
place In the forenoon and word reach
ed that man was lying dead on the
street. Detective Keegan, then a po-
liceman. went to the place and found
Mrs Nichols lying on the verandah
unconscious, and bleeding quite freely.
A heavy stick, said to be the imple-
ment used in the assault, was lying
near. The plaintiff testified that his
wife was unconscious for almost three
months. Since the assault she has
been unable to properly do her house
hold work.
+ Mr. Nichols denied his wife was
suffering from internal troubles prior
to the assault more than the average
person of her age Is subjected to.
DIR e. w. Mcdonald was the first
witness for the defense. His evidence
was that he attended her three days
after the assault and her injuries con-
sisted of a discoloration around one
temple and another abrasion on the
forehead. She seemed to understand
all his questions. The doctor testified
in the city court and there heard DR.
Crane testify, and the latter's descrlp-
ton of the wOman's condition was al
together different when witness saw
her. There was such a conflict of
opinion in the city court proceedings
regarding the woman's condition, be-
tween witness and Drs Crane and
Chapman that he did not think they
We're speaking OF the same case. Wit
ness was sent to see Mrs Nichols BY
Attorney GuilfoiIe, but he did not un-
derstand that he was to testify in the
case. He was satisfied that he found
he evidence of fracture of the skull
The first Of the divorce cases heard
by Judge 1nayer in the superior court
to-day was that of Mary G. Keefe VS.
Thomas #. Keefe. in which desertion
was alleged. Attorney Durant pre-
sented the case. Mrs Keefe testified
she was married May Is, 1899, and
has two children. Five years ago her
troubles ended. when her husband de-
serted her. They were then living IN
Stamford and she was ordered out of
heefe left the town and went to Jer-
sey City. Witness heard recently that
he is now employed in Bridgeport. She
has not seen him since they parted in
Stamford, and to the courts question
| If she was willing to live with her hus-
band now, she said she could not say.
Michael 10. Kee1ey, brother of the
plaintiff, and Mrs Annie Millett, testi-
fed for lie complainant, and decree
with the custody of the children was
granted.
The next case, Mary E. Snyder VS.
Robert j. Snyder, was based on intern
peTance. The custody of the children
was also asked. Mrs Snyder testified
shewas married April 3. 1892. and that
her husband was a drinking man.
Very frequently he was Intoxicated.
Two years ago he ran away, leaving
her upon her own resources to obtain
a livelihood. Four years ago they
came to Waterbury. During the last
year of their living together defendant
was almost constantly drunk.
Edward Wheeler said he knew the
defendant well and tnat he was intoxi-
Gated two or three times a week regu-
larly. AT one time he was employed
by the Clock Co.
The court asked witness If he con-
sidered all drunken people act aHke.
and he said. he did not think they do,
but that Snyder was drunk he was
sure.
Mrs Esther Wheeler knew defend
ant the last three or four years. Once
or twice she saw him dead drunk"
He was in d trolley car and unable to
sit up. Mrs Snyder, she said, earns
her living now by washing. About
every time she saw defendant he was
drunk. The petition was granted
The petition of annie Powers VS.
Michael Powers was taken off the cal
endar. This closed the operations OF
the divorce mill.
At short calendar in the superior
court TODAY a bond of $50 was order
ed to be filed within week in the case
of Bridget Whelan and Daniel Don
ovan VS. the Connecticut Railway Il
Lighting company.
A motion for an additional order OF
notice was allowed in the divorce suit
| Of Many r. Neil VS. Edward Neil.
Cruelty is the allegation IN the suit,
| and it is supposed that Neil is in
either the army or the navy. He has
been in the army elsewhere. A year
ago he was living in Elizabeth, n. J.,
hut his Whereabouts now are un-
| known.
A demurrer. has been filed by the
ScoviH Manufacturing company in the
suit instituted by John F. Fitzgerald.
and hut for the absence of Attorney
| O'Neill in the snDreme court, it would
| have been argued.
| All the other motions went over,
though ex-senator Kennedy Objected
| To a postnonement Of those in the two
cases Of Corbett VS. the Colonial Trust
| company The defendant asks that
/ the con'nlaint be corrected and At
| toruev Kennedy maintained that this
matter has been on the list three
weeks already and TINT 1t was decided
hv Judge Ralph Wheeler in another
| form.
The Brook company was cited in as
| nart defendant in the suit Of Halbrook
| VS. Rowland.
The aasionment Of cases stands as
/ arranged last week.
The jury after being ont an hour
! and half returned verdict for the