Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1904-07-01

and the first divorce case of the term. 1t
was entitled William II. Kingsley VS..
Electa II. Kingsley, the petitioner being
the weli-knOwn dentist of Middlebury:
and the ground set up in the petition
was desertion. These parties We're mar
ried in Brandon in 1890 and most of
their married life, Or such of it as they
have lived together, has been passed
in Aliddlebury, The testimony went to
show that the lady was forever in a
keen state of chronic discomfort with
things in general and was given to per-
petual fault-fnding, She was also adj
dicted to sudden and protracted absences
from home and on one occasion she took
a trip to Europe without the consent or
fore-knowledge of her husband and
remained abroad year and a half
Finally, five years ago last spring DR..
Kingsley moved from the house which
they had been occupying in this village
out to his farm in the east part of the
town and his wife remained where she
was. the house which they had been
occupying belonging to her. She is
understood to have lived most of the
time since with married sister in
Brandon. The case was finished in
little more than an hour and the decision
was deferred. Judge William II. Bliss
represented the petitioner and there was
no appearance for the pettionee.
The next case was w. w. Rider VS..
George Swinyer, Bristol case, and the
plaintiff sued to recover on two notes
given by the defendant in 1890 to Will
liam f. Dunshee, now dead, the faces of
the notes aggregating $135, which with
the accrued interest now amounts to
about 800. The defence was two-fold,
first, that the amount of the notes had
been paid; and second that the notes
We're outlawed, anyhow, As to the
latter contention there was some
question. The maker of the notes signed
them by mark to which signatures there
was witness. Now if, as the plaintiff
contended this witness signed as a
witness to the body of the notes them
selves as well as to the mark signatures
then the statute of limitations would not
run on the notes until II years had
passed, and this suit was brought within
that period. The case lasted but little
over an hour and the court took the
papers and reserved decision. Mr. Rider
was assisted on his side by Judge Bliss,
while the defense was represented by
j j. Wilson of Bethel and Frank L. Fish
of Nergennes.
The third case on was that of Frank f.
Farmer VS.. the town of Salisbury, the
plaintiff being practising physician here
I in Middlebury, Dr. Farmer sued to
recover a bill of S12 for treating the wife
of w. E. LAUDER of Salisbury, when she
was dangerously ill from the effects of
child birth in the late winter and spring
of 1903. The defendant town claimed that
the Laubers had never been a town
charge on Salisbury, that the town
authorities had never employed DR..
Farmer to treat Mrs. LAUDER, nor had the
town in any way agreed to become
responsible for the physicians fees.
Town overseer of the poor Whitney, in
fact, testified that he had given the
the parties who had interested them
selves in Mrs. Lauber's condition to
understand that he would not for the
town assume the responsibility for such
payment. There seemed to be consider
able confusion in the testimony. The
case was begun at II o'clock and lasted
until the middle of the afternoon, when
the court took the papers and reserved
decision. j. E. Cushman of Burlington
and Leroy C. Russell of Middlebury had
charge of the plaintiffs side of the case
and Mr.. Fish and Charles F. Kingsley of
Salisbury conducted the defense.
A brief hearing was held at noon in a
naturalization case and at its close final
naturalization papers were issued to the
applicant, Charles A. Champeny OF
Hancock.
Another divorce case was heard in the
afternoon. This was Flora w. Mack VS.
Arthur H. Mack This young couple were
married in Salisbury, where both OF
them belonged, in 1885, and there they
lived until May, 1901, when Mack got
full" was arrested, escaped from the
officer, and disappeared as utterly as die
the historic McGinty, no word from him
or of him has ever come back TO Sails
bury and now his wife asks for divorce
on the ground of desertion. The decision
was withheld. Charles F. Kingsley APP
peared for Mrs. Mack and there was nc
defense.
One more case was started but moi
completed Friday afternoon, and it was
the First National bank of Bristol VS.
George Scarborough and the Rurlinp