Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-03-29
7 THE SPRACUE CASE.
Judge Case Rssssved Decision in Di.
 vorcs Proceedings.

Attorney Howard B. Taylor of Dan- bury, who was in the displeasure of Judge Case of the superior court yes terday morning because of his non-ap- pearance in the Sprague divorce con test in which he was counsel for the defense, explained matters to the judge this morning and the hearing was resumed.
 Mrs Clara Sprague, the defendant, denied in almost every particular the evidence given by her husband, Charles A.. yesterday. Instead of she leaving her husband, it was he who left her, she said. At that time they were liv- ing at 353 East Main street. One morning about six years ago, Sprague left for work as usual, and when he returned for dinner he had sheriff with him, and he left, taking his cloth ing with him. There was no food nor money ill the house and for week Mrs Sprague managed as best she could, an then she went to her par ents' home in Danbury. 'Sprague gave no reason for leaving. He merely said something to the effect of ''chucks" when he was going.
 A week before the Danbury fair 1899, Sprague went to Danbury and saw his wife. and it was arranged that the following week he should call for her and they would live again together i'll Waterbury. But he never came and she did not see him again until in court this morning. She denied he found her on that occasion in con- promising position. She denied ever being intoxicated or that she ever drank liquor. At this stage of the hearing it developed that some time ago Sprague had entered previous suit for divorce. alleging intidelity. and that it was withdrawn. Mrs Sprague said her husband never questioned her fidelity to "im.
 The disclosure of the previous di- vOrce proceedings aroused Judge Case. He asked Attorney Rogers. counsel for Sprague, if he was aware there had been a previous case. and Mir Rogers said he was, and that he did not inten- tionally conceal the fact from the court.
 Tt is too bad said the judge, that divorce practice cannot be purged once in while.'
 Mrs Sprague then resumed. and said she has been living with her parents since her return to Danbury. and. that they maintain themselves upon her fathers pension and the proceeds of washing and hOusework. Sprague struck her once while they lived ill "n Nx.hn n Danbury he blacked her eyes. They never lived happily, but for the sake of their boy who is now il years of age and in her custody, she lived with her husband. X letter was introduced in which he said he was sorry for what he had done and if his wife would re- turn to him once more he would be ''all right and do the right thing" This letter was written before his visit to Danbury. Mrs Jane Fisher. Mrs Sprague's mother, corrobOrated this testimony.
 Sprague was sent for and he denied all that his wife said. He put the blame of their difficulties upon her shoulders. He could not recall ever writing her letter in which he eX- pressed repentance for his conduct When shown the letter mentioned Inc appeared surprised. He identified tht writing as his. but could not recall ever writing it. This closed-th case and under the circumstances Attorney Rogers said he would not claim a di vorce for his client. Attorney Taylor asked for judgment for his client and the court took the papers and withheld decision.