Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-05-13

The divorce mill ground out three di- vorces to-day. It was rather late in the forenoon when Judge Robinson set the wheels in motion. The first case heard was that of Anna M. Pritchard vs Harry E. Pritchard Mrs Pritchard alleged intolerable cruelty and habitual intemperance and asked for the cus- tody of her children. She was mar ried to the defendant on June 27, 1898, and on October 30, 1903, she left him. She lived in Waterbury until then and since then with her mother i'll Union City Defendant was employed at Nc. Carthy & Moore's mineral water works. Almost immediately after mar riage he began to drink and then he developed into chronic crank
 Further evidence of his habitual in- ebriety was given. by Louis Raffel, George IL. Atwood, milk dealer. and James F. Treble. The latter roomed with the Pritchards and several times saved plaintiff from the defendant. A divorce was granted on the grounds of intemperance. There was dozen witnesses to testify, but the court deemed the above sufficient.
 The next case was that of Emma G. Corey vs Sidney Corey, which was based on alleged cruelty and intemper- ance. Before the petitioner went OH tue stand q long deposition was read to the court by Attorney Gillette On May 1, 1901, the parties were married, and, as in the preceding case, the de fendant took to drink soon after He became so much addicted to it that pe- titioner found it impossible to continue living with him. But she did not re- main away very long. He promised to amend, but he seemed unable to keep his promise He frequently threatened her and once or twice did use violence
 Thomas G. Hotchkiss, in whose house they lived for time, testified for Mrs Corey. The petition was granted
 The last case was Fannie D. Scran- ton vs Minot A Scranton IntolerahIe cruelty was alleged in this case
 On November p, 1897, the troubles of this couple began, they being mar ried on that date. Two children, girls, , and 3, were born to them. On No vember 12, 1902. petitioner left defend ant, being unable to live with him any longer, as he did not provide food suffered for want of food and fuel and but for petitioners folks they would have been in worse straits
 Defendant never struck petitioner in, tentfonally, but he would pinch her frequently. He bought her only one dress, which cost him 80 cents. and only one pair of shoes.
 Mrs Scranton lives in Cheshire with her parents. Her petition was support ed by evidence of James B. Potter, who worked on the farm; her father and mother. MT and Mrs Morris IT. Goodwin, who said defendant was the queerest man he ever met. He was absolutely worthless. The court did not think this evidence sufficient to prove the complaint It showed neg Iect, but not cruelty. The case was continued and court adjourned to Tuesday, 9:3O a. m.
 The first matter heard by Judge Rob- inson at short calendar in the superior court to-day is of interest to all those who are waiting to jump into dead mems shoes. It was a hearing on de murrer to a certain portion of the com plaint in the suit of George H. Post and wife against Minnie See1ey Post, in which breach of contract is alleged and damages for services rendered asked.
 In Southbury, some years ago, lived Samuel Post, his wife and son George, who is now n foreman in one of the big factories here George married, and, it is claimed. prepared to quit the farm and cast out for his own for tunes, But his father said to him in effect: "Son George, why don't you and your wife live here? Continue on as before. Your mother and are pretty well along ill years, you know, so you might as well remain There is a good deal of work to be done and you might as well remain and do 1t, and when am gone and your mother Is gone why you will have all.''
 So Greorge remained and in the course of time his mother died. Eff teen years later MT Post married again.