Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1903-1917, 1904-06-24
TWO DIVORCES.
Superior Court Takes
Hand in Settling Do
mestic Difficulties.

Proceedings at short calendar in the
superior court to-day began, with
hearing on a demurrer in the case of
John f. Fitzgerald VS. the Scovill
Manufacturing Co for injuries to his
right hand The statute of limitations
is set up by the defense. The suit was
not brought until about two years after
the accident and the defense claims
that Fitzgerald was consequently
barred by the statute of limitation
from entering suit. Decision was re-
served.
The demurrer to the reasons OF ap-
peal by the board of aldermen from
the decision of the railroad commits
sioners on the Oakville bridge trolley
dispute was not heard. It was stated
that there Is a prospect of adjusting
the contention.
In the divorce suit of Emily Parker
VS. Henry Parker, the court held no
further order Of notice was necessary.
Parkers whereabouts are unknown.
The suit will be put on the trial list.
A demurrer in the breach of prom
Use suit of Maria Pumella VS. Pasquale
ContalG was sustained by agreement.
A laughable incident happened DUR
ing arguments on an appeal from
taxation of costs in the cases of Al
cott ct al against the Connecticut Rail
way and Lighting Co. Judge Burpee
accused Attorney O'Neill of "buttin'
in" The counsel in the case, Lowe
and Burpee, were in warm arguments
when Mr. O'Neill ''butted in,'' taking
sides with Judge Lowe. Judge Bur
pee did not like this and Informed Mr.
O'Neill he was off his trolley.
Mr. O'Neill replied that as a member
of the bar he had right to speak in
the matter before the court. Judge
Burpee made no answer to that and
MIR O'Neill had the floor until the mat
ter was closed. Decision was reserved.
The court decided to not call in the
jury. The contested divorce case of,
Wilder VS. Wilder was set down for
hearing Tuesday; Rooney and Wool
SOlidated Railroad Co, e. FL. Hayes VS.
Attorney N. r.. Bronson, Thursday.
A motion by Attorney O'Neill that
the chief justice assign a Judge to Wa
terbury early in September was en-
dorsed by the court.
OF the half dozen dicorce cases on
the list only few were tried.
Desertion was the allegation in the
case Of Lizzie VS. John H Harding.
The Hardings were married on Janu-
ary Is, 1885, and in April, 1899, defend
ant disappeared. He is now supposed
to be living in Lowell, Mass. Some
of the witnesses were from Lowell,
and from their evidence it seemed
Harding could not restrain his fancy
wandering. Marie Collins of Nauga-
tuck knew Mrs Harding very well.
They worked together in a rubber fac
tory in Naugatuck. Henry Herman
of Naugatuck was the final witness
A divorce was granted.
Clarence O'Dell VS. Hattie O'Dell,
was based on alleged desertion and
adultery. On January 9, 1896, these
people were married in Sharon and for
four years they lived happily. Then
Thomas Bailey and Addison O'Dell,
plaintiffs brother, came on the scene
and all was changed.
The court thought an effort ought to
be made to find defendant, and he con-
tfnued the case to next week.
The last case. Annie Powers VS. Mich
ael Powers, was then called. Intem-
perance and desertion were the allega-
tions in the case The Powerses lived
in Waterbury nine years. Mrs Powers
lives here still. She was married on
November 27, 1892. Several times
Powers left town, and his whereabouts
now are unknown. He spent consid-
cradle time in jail for intemperance
and other things. Christopher Hum
phrey. brother Of plaintiff, and Fred
erick Bangs, testified for the petitioner.
A decree was granted on the grounds
Of desertion, with the custody of three
minor children.