Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-02-19

picture hats and other magnificent specimens of the ndlnners hand4- craft. Almost all the chairs in the public's part of the room were occu- pied by women and the presence of the sex in such large numbers show ed it was short calendar day in couRt and that the divorce 1nill would 0p- crate to some extent. Every woman present was interested 1n one of the many ex-parte divorce petitions on the calendar, of which there were nine. Some of the women were dressed an the sonb1 hue Of moaagn- ing, but at was no less striking than the dtess of the othefsA This d1fRer~ enoe in hue an costume Indicated the standing in court of the wearer. They who attracted attention by their gor- gsous plumhge were wltneses. Or friends oe the petitioners; those who were dressed in black. or whose cos tune consisted mainly Of material of that color. were the principals in the petitions. Almost all of the petition CTS fin the divorce eases on the pres ent docket arc women
 It was 10 o'clock when Judge Ralph Wheeler took the bench and reviewed the businsss of the day. Tine case Of Robert McGrafh versus the Equitable Life Insurance Go was ta- ken off the assignment. list for the present. 4 motion to file an amend ed answsr an the suit of Charles NAchols veesus Thomas Delaney, in which assault and battery are alleged was allowed. The alleged clrcum- stances of the case ase said to have taken place on January 12, 1901. The case was taken off the assignment hst for the presenh
 The davorcD cases of GRTxae R. Mac Hwen versus Emma B.. MacEwen and Rose Stolow1ch versus IBi6or Stolowich were put over to next week.
 Attorneys Keflcgg ana Kennedy. engaged in warm arguments for and against assigning. the cases for per jury against David 0. Marsh and Willis vandemark for hearinp at this term of the count, The sum and substance of Mir Kenoggs argument was "thaE 1t would be very serious
 matter for the state if the cases ware not tried this term" t ,s.- >
 Mir Kennedy fin reply asked what was there about the cases that made them so very important in the eeta-
 nation of the states attorney. Gases of larger importance and cases of smaller moment we're often cont1n- ued from term to term, he said. He did not see how the cases could be prepared for trial this term Th9 court said he saw 10 reason, and so far none was given why the cases should not be tried this term, not ne cessarily in week or two, but at the present term. It was then deoi0ed that df the way is clear they may be assigned next Friday for hearing. The prospect now is that they will not be heard for three weeks, They will be the last Of the criminal busi- ness at this term. Cfvil busdness will begin with the cases Of Antonio Della bella, administrator. versus the Holmes, Booth 6 Haydens Go. and George M. Grflley versus the city of Waterbury.
 After dlsposing of few motions the divorce nMll was set tn operation The first chse called was Fife A. vs, Frank L. Packard The allegations in the case were f11Aemperance and cruelty. On F'ebruary IS, 1895, the parties were married. Mrs Packaad legged took place in Waterbury. eOnI August 2s, 1902, petitioner left de- fendanf, being unable to live with him any longer on acCounb of hasI habits. At one tame defendant was an assdstaut fireman for the WaheG> bury Clock Go The alleged cruelty consisted of the kind usually told on the witness stand, beating and chok- ing petitioner and drunken conduct 1t was necessary for petitioner ta conceal the family funds for dsfend- ant would take them to slake his con- ttnuous thirst. One day Charles Kennedy, a bubcheF. saved her from her husbands fists and feet. An other time she accused him "of being out with . certain person" and for answer he knocked her on the head. The witnesses were Mrs Catherine Kennedy and her husband. Charles, and s Clara ,sa, Mossr0~e The petition
 Charles L. Tewegl vs DstssiS wass the next case. Mrs Newell ig sWp- posed to be living in New Haven. De sertton wes alleasd- Petitioner ees- tffed he lives ut 800 Hast Main street ana was marr4ed in southng- ton July 27. 1888. Deseat1on took place on March 20. 1899. At that time they were living at NH Plain, Dsfsndarut'a sssnar was the cause of fne separation. She made trouble and defendant sdded with her. Be cause he refused to allow defen6ant.s sister to visit his house de&andans lett him, taking their two children with her while hs 'was aG work He re- covered the children. bt&t taefendans got possession of tharn agaGn and has them now
 The supporting vEatnssses were! william L. Saunders, Paul HaSpdeA a nd Joseph Tyler Of HarpeTs Ferry. This case was continued, the court se- marking that the plaintiff ought to make an effort to get his wife to live with him.
 Maud Wilson sought divorce from Napoleon J. Wilson on the grounds or deserton, and also the custody or one child, Walter, aged 12 years. Mrs Wilson who Is nurse, was married March 2s, 1891, and was a school faacher in stratford at the time of her marriage. On August IA, 1896, they parted, Napoleon was norose in tenn perament and the day before he left he threatened to kill petitioner her father and her brothsr. Mrs h1cy Doolittle, mother of plaantif. living m TswMNAwfpk and ENW0TQ