Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1905-07-07
THE POPULAR CLOTHING HOUSE.

Bridport at the time of the marriage
seven or eight years ago, the groom at
that time being a resident of that town.
He is understood to be living somewhere
in Michigan now and it is also under
stood that he has taken unto himself
another wife, for the doing of which
proceedings for bigamy were instituted
against him in this county court several
terms ago and the case is still held IN
allegiance. The petitioner was given
her bill on the ground Of wilful deser-
ton, as set up, and she was also given
the privilege of resuming her former
name of Viola d. Orr, she having been
once before married Lawyer LaFleur
was counsel for the lady and once again
there was no appearance for the de-
tense.
The case of George Palmer VS.. Hattie
A. Palmer was heard on Thursday after
noon. This case came from New Haven
in which town the couple were married
in 1902. The ground alleged was adul-
terry with one George Brown and hap
PLY it was the only case of this charac-
ter heard during the term. The evil
dence was more than strong in more
senses than one, and the bill was
granted forthwith for the cause alleged.
The present whereabouts of the young
woman are unknown to her former ac-
quaintances in New Haven. Cushman
and Russell were the husbands attorneys
and there was no appearance for the
wife.
| One more divorce case was heard on
Thursday, which was Ovanda Lamorder
VS.. Paul Lamorder. This case came over
from Salisbury, in which town the
parties were married in 1888 and where
they have resided practically all the time
since; and the cause alleged was intoler-
able severity. The court thought the
case so clearly proven that on Friday
morning the decision was announced
granting the bill on the ground alleged
with alimony as per stipulations on file.
These stipulations call for the sum of
$50 court money" and 5000 straight
alimony Mr.. LaFleur represented the
petitioner and Charles F. Kingsley of
Salisbury appeared for the husband, not
approving the granting of the divorce
but on the question of alimony.
The last divorce case to come on, and
the last case of any kind heard during
the term, was disposed of at the closing
session on Friday and was entitled
Mary E. Smith VS.. Jones S. Smith
This case came from Addison town
which has never furnished much divorce
work for the court, at least in recent
years. These parties were married in
Addison in 1875 and the wife has re-
sided there practically all the time since
the marriage, but the husband has had
several absences, one of which was an
enforced absence of three years in Texas
resulting from his illegal relations with
another woman. Something about seven
years ago Husband Smith left home and
the State in the company of an unsavOry
young woman named Lottie GOsham
have never come back and are now
supposed to be living together some
where in York state. The Smith couple
have 21-year old son who sided with
his mother and made a very creditable
appearance as witness. The Smiths
are more than numerous in Addison
and Jonas S. is the first one of the
tribe in many years to bring disgrace
upon the family name. The cause here
alleged was plain wilful desertion anC
the bill was Immediately granted or
that ground. Attorney Button con
Quoted the case for the lady and OF
course there was no appearance for the
husband.l
Other cases disposed of during the last
two days, and not elsewhere noted, WERE
as follows:
Joseph Blaize VS.. Louis Goulette, al
action of replevin which has been on the
docket for three years. A motion to dis
miss was made at the last term and the
matter held with the court" Judge
Watson sustained the motion and this
action was dismissed with costs against
Plaintiff Blaze.
State VS.. Edward Whittier, an infor
nation for fishing contrary to law. Bal
called and forfeited. The bond was fol-
800.
State VS.. Alonzo Crossman, an infor
nation charging bigamy Bail of S2OC
called and forfeited.
In the cases of State vs. Grant Aller
and State VS.. John Thompson, The fine,