Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-03-25
DIVORCE MILL AT WORK.
Two hismated Couples Separated by Judge Wheeler Assignment of Cases Judge Wheeler to
 Finish Up His Work Next Week

tuS5 hOClCI " 1lN tiIGu W1lAuIa aN and on the following Tuesday, April 5, Judge Thayer will come here and re- main while business lasts. or at least until late in May. The Belft case, now in process of hearing, will be re- sumed next Tuesday, and it is expected will be ended that day.
 For Wednesday or late Tuesday next Judge Wheeler will hear Charles H. Bristops appeal from probate, in the matter of an appointment of a conser- vator, and following that he will hear the case of Attorney E. F. Cole, guar dian, against William W. Jerman.
 For Tuesday, April 5, the following cases were assigned: George W. Carnes vs Frank F. McEvoy, Antonio Delabella ys the Holmes, Booth & Haydens Go, and Charles Nichols vs Thomas Delaney. These will be tried by the jury. Court cases assigned Tor Wednesday, April 7, are John M. Hoff- man vs Kate Moran Hoffman, Hannah J. Smith vs Truman J. Smith, both contested divorce suits; the Co-opera- tive Savings society vs F. J. Kings Elizabeth B. Bell, executrix, and Jay M. Pierce vs city of Waterbury.
 A few divorces were ground out. The petition of Frank Pilgrim vs Helen V. Pilgrim was granted. This was heard some weeks ago. Desertion was alleged. Mrs Pilgrim lives in Tor rington with some of her children. and MT Pilgrim is employed by the Water bury Clock Go.
 Winifred Dundas alleged desertion in her suit against her husband, John- son Dundas, and she also asked for the restoration of her maiden name, Converse. The story of cruelty told in connection with the case was the worst heard in court this term.
 The parties were married in Ansopia in September 1889, and on June 2, 1902, defendant left for parts un- known, after married life of the most exciting and violent character, accord ing to the story told by Mrs Dundas In brief, this was that she was not aware of her husbands strong liking for drink until after marriage Two months following that event he gave his wife terrible beating. He got drunk 8 few days after the wedding and he was almost constantly tntOxi- cated thereafter. He never failed to get drunk on a Wednesday or Satur- day evening, and he never returned home without bottle of whiskey. Often he was whiskey mad and on these occasions his conduct was most destructive. Whatever happened to be at hand he would throw at his wife.
 The first assault took place two months after the marriage. On that occasion defendant tore the clothes off plaintiff. He threw pokers and knives at her, knocked her down and kicked her about the house. A knife was his favorite weapon. and it seemed he was always premeditative in his assaults, for he generally locked the doors so that his wife could not escape. But sometimes she managed to get out, and if the disturbance took place in the night she would not return until next morning.
 One time he struck at her with a poker and left his mark on her arm. Another time he rushed at her with a vegetable knife and stabbed at her. A steel in her corset saved her and broke the knife at the handle, but she got a slight cut on the wrist. He was ar rested on that occasion, which occurred in Ansonia.
 Then they moved to Waterbury, but defendants behavior was not affected by the change for he gave his wife a terrible beating one night, was arrest ed by Officer Bricke1 and Officer Allen, fined $50 and costs and sentenced to three months in jail. He took an ap- peal and the case was nolled i'll the district court, and the records failed to show the terms of the nOlle.
 The night of the alleged desertion he broke in the rear door of the house and threatened to kill plaintiff.
 Mrs Lottie Converse corroborated the above and added considerably to it saying he had a knack of throwing lighted lamps, dishes, stove lids. ket- ties of boiling water, knives and bot ties of whiskey. The petition was granted.
 The suit of George R. Rubert of Naugatuck vs Lizzie E. Rubert. alleg- ing intolerable cruelty and adultery, was withdrawn, the plaintiff not hav- ing lived the statutory period, three years, in the state.
 The cases of Bassett and Bassett and Newell and Newell remain unde- termined, and the suit of Annie Pow CTS ys Michael Powers went over to next week.
 Otis S. Northrop was appointed a committee in the suit of Paul Ashelm vs the city, a contention of assessment Of benefits and damages and change Of grade on North Main street.
 A motion to set aside an order eras- ing substituted complaint in the suit Of John O'Neill vs Mary B. w. Smith, was allowed; the defendants demurrer in the case of Mary Vance ys the Con- solidated Go was withdrawn. and the two cases of Julia and Joseph Corbett were taken off the jury list and put on the court trial list, motion for de- fault being allowed.
 An additional order of notice was al- lowed in the divorce case of Lizzie Harding vs John H. Harding. Desef- tion is alleged to have taken place in Lowell, Mass, and the defendants whereabouts are unknown