Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-11-11

day by Judge Roraback at short cal endar in the superior court. Sarah J. Lapine was the plaintiff in that case and Andrew Lapine the defendant, Hab1tual intemperance and intOlera- ble cruelty were the allegations. At torney Russell appeared for the plain
 tiff. Mrs Lapine did ndt know exactly whether her age was IA or 16 when she was married in Brewster, N. Y. by a justice of the peace in March, 1894. Five children were born to her, three of whom died in three weeks of diphtheria, a few years ago. Her hus-
 bands age was AS when she married. Three years ago they parted, as she
 was unable to longer stand life with him. He was almost constantly in- tOxicated, she said, and when he was sober 1t was because he had no money.
 Lapine would go into the woods with a pail of beer, or a bottle of whiskey and drink it, and sometimes he would remain in the woods for days. He lost every situation he had through
 his love for drink. A short time ago
 he threatened to shoot his wife, and he has police record. The witnesses were plaintiff's father, William Fl. Wooding, and Arthur Harah. Mrs Lapine was granted a divorce and the custody of her two children, Inez, 2 years, and Elna, years.
 There was only one other case on the divorce list, James Connolly against Margaret Burns Connolly, and this was continued to next week it was continued for lack of evil dence, and it appears that Mrs Con- nelly saw her case stated in the pa- pers. She accordingly made up her mind to contest it and has retained
 Attorney Slavin to that end. Con- nelly's age Is 70 and his wife's AS. At short calendar to-day Attorney Cole was given an opportunity to whack the directors of the WatertoWn Savings bank, and he took it. There was motion to amend the complaint in the suit against MT Mattoon before Judge Roraback, and MT Cole said: Tn the name of all that's good and gracious I would like to know when these bank directors will get through amending their complaint and when they will know once for all what they want. This is the third or fourth time they have asked to amend their com plaint They have had the papers, the books and all the property of the bank in their possession since last January and still they don't know what they re after. They brought suit in February and here they are in November still wanting to amend their complaint, and we are clamoring for trial all the time"
 Attorney Carmody stated that anoth- CT bond had been found and the banks counsel wished to include that in their complaint. After arguing the matter half an hour the motion was allowed, without prejudice.
 A bond for costs was ordered in the suit of Sarah w. Futile vs John w. Gaffney, and motion for suit money in the Lathrop case was taken off the list as the case will soon be tried on it's merits.
 A number of motions for bills of par | tfculars by plaintiff and by defendant, for copy of the contract, and that the defendant make known whether the contract was in writing or by parole, in the suit of Gray vs St Patrick's church, were all allowed.
 A number of matters were argued and decision reserved.
 Cases set down for hearing next week were Atwood vs Burpee and Wal ker vs the city.
 The demurrer in the suit of. George O. Minor against the Manufacturers National bank was overruled. That is, to-day the court holds that the bank should have notified William Cottle that certain note issued by William J. Snow and endorsed by him had had been dishonored at the bank. The demurrer held that 1t was not ne- cessary for the bank to do so. t --4----
 The Lawlor will contest continues to engage the attention of the jury and Judge Roraback in the superior court At times the hearing is very interesting. It is being fought for ev- cry point in it and at times the law yers become actually captious in their questions and claims. Yesterday after noon MT Williams, at the close of question to Mrs Lawlor, said: well, I will not press the matter any fur ther," and MT O'Neill objected quite emphatically to the remark. He held that MT Williams should not have made the remark in the presence of the jury, and in moment the lawyers were having tilt.
 Mrs Lawlor, incidental to an answer, remarked, "Well, suppose so," and again the lawyers got into wrangle, one claiming LudC sue SHOuIu uOC udYC made the remark and the other claim ing that she was entitled to suppose.
 Mrs Lawlor continues to be the prin- cipal witness. She was on the stand at the close of the days hearing yes terday, telling of her relations with Father Lawlor. She told of a trip south with Father Lawlor and Mrs John P. Lawlor, now Mrs J. O. Howe, and each of them paying her own ex- penses. She denied ever turning Fath- CT Lawlor or the McEvoy boys out doors, but said they went of their own yolition to the house on the corner of Spencer avenue and North Main street. She admitted that she might have said something that caused them to leave. It was probably the fact that she had brought the suit for the partition of the property.
 s.And so you think they left because of that innocent remark" said MT O'Neill.
 s.I object to this abuse of the wit ness," exclaimed MT Williams, and 1t ,,IoiY fbof NTpS T,axUIo1.