The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-05-03
IN AND ABOUT THE COURTS
JURY DIS1GREESs IN HAZEL
 HURST CASE.

stood to for AcquittaI-ItaIian stab-
 Der Gets Six Months for AssauIt-
 Court Accepts Administrator BIake's
 Aeeount-OIiyer White eonl,Sitted to
 MIddIetown-ManyD Divorce Actions.
 when. the trial of Charles E. Hazel hurst, of Norwich, state policeman, was resumed in the common pleas court yesterday, the accused was cross-ex- amined by Prosecutor Robert E. Wood ruff as to why he said to the New Ha- ven police, when they stopped him and Mrs. William Bell on March 2S. that the latter had not done any harm and should not be arrested. Attorney Ar vine, with Attorney David E. Fitzger- aid, representing the accused, objected to Mir. Woodruff's badgering the. wit ness when the latter followed up his question on this point with others call culated to develop more testimony. MT. Arvine asked the accused if he had not done this as a courtesy to ths woman to protect her. Hazelhurst said | he did it as a matter of kindness Gilbert L., Hewitt of Norwich, for | merly county commissioner for New London county, said he had known the accused ten or twelve years and that he could not say that he was a first class citizen. l "A. T. Boone, also of Norwich, said he was an uncle of Druggist Duchette of that city, and admitted that Hazelhurst had made affidavit against his relative on charges of violating the liquor law , and perjury. He said the accused's s reputation was not very good. Attorneys Fitzgerald and Arvine in summing up for the defense contended 1 that there were absolutely no grounds against Hazelhurst, and that he was simply on state police business. l.. Prosecuting Attorney Woodruff de- I clared that such was not the case. In \ his summing up. he stated that there was no bad feeling between the state and city police. j. ,a4+ i The jury retired at 4:55. At 6:3o Sher- l if Walsh entered the jury room to see I if the men wanted anything to eat, and they answered no. At $40 they announced that they absolutely could 1 not come to an agreement. It was aft erwards announced officially that the l jury stood seven for acquittal and live for conviction.
 ] Hazelhurst was allowed to go under the bonds under which he has been { held. Prosecutor Woodruff announced that he would try Hazelhurst again on the same charge.
 1 MANY DIVORCE CASES LISTED. I In tlle list of cases returned to the superior court yesterday there was a considerable string of divorce eases in, N cluded. Those returned are: N Annie c. Cormack against William y Cornlack of Hartford Married Decern- Der 30, 1890. Cruelty and intemperance < are alleged.
 1 Mariana Starita against Luigi Star. ita, both of this city. Married June 4 \ 1904. Intemperance and cruelty are \ charged. yss,.., .-.s's'-as y.ss7
 l George l.. Hinnan ys. Lena G. Hin 1 man. Married November 24, 1897 Adultery and cruelty are the allegations I on which the action is brought. Charles I F. Wilbur of 672 Chapel street is named I as correspondent
 yl John c. Lynehan charges that his ' wife, Amelia, deserted him, and foI that reason he wants alegal separation I They were married November 25, 1891. [ Frederick c. Turner sues Clara B. Turner on the ground of assertion. They were married November A, 1896. Plain. i tiff asks for the custody of one minor 'I child. ,% 1 Emily Hotchkiss sues Arthur L. Hotchkiss for a legal separation be. cause, as she alleges, the defendant has deserted her. The defendant resides al Startford. They were Weddsd February l IA, 1880. l Smith Rutan vs Addie Rutan. Mar ried March 10, 1898. and assertion dat ing from September of the same year is alleged.
 tano. Married June 10, 1904. Desertior is alleged.
 Louise Rada vs. Louis Rada. Mar ried July 25, 1890. Cruelty is charged and the plaintiff asks for the custody of one minor child.
 Lillian s. Tousey vs. Walter Tousey
 Married January 1, 1901. Cruelty is al legged, and the custody of one minor I child asked for. "r~
 Harry R. Romer vs. Evalyn S. Ro- Inner. Married March 6, 1894. Adultery
 is alleged.
 OctaIb odett vs. Albiho odett. Mar ried July 30, 1871. The plaintiff asks for release by law owing to the fact that the defendant has deserted the l plaintiff and is now. living in parts un known ..# .y Elsie G. Dickerman vs. Harry E. l Dickerman. Married December 1, 1901
 Harry has been incorporate and cruel according to the complaint.