Waterbury evening Democrat., 1907-06-14
DIVORCE MILL
In Operation All Day fin County Court House Two DecreeS
 Were Granted.

The divorce court to-day ground slowly and tediously, occupying the entire forenoon. The case of aMry I. Douglas against James Douglas which has been on the trial list for some time against went over to next week.
 The first suit taken up was that of Selma A. Johnson against Andrew l.. Johnson. Naugatuck was the scene of action of this suit, and it was pre- scented by Attorney Kennedy. Mrs Johnson's story was to the effect that she was married on March 21, 1894, and on October 22, 1902, she felt compelled to leave her husband. She alleged intollerable cruelty and that her husband was convicted of a criminal assault upon Lillian Dal- ton, aged twelve, for which he suf- fered two years in the state prison. The couple have two children, Olga, 12. and Lillian, 10. Mrs Johnson works in one of the rubber shops in Naugatuck to maintain her family. Her husband lives in Naugatuck also but he might as well be in the north pole. He was fighting and drink ing man and several times he threatened to kill his wife. Once or twice he chased her out of the house and once or twice he locked her up in room for the purpose of killing her when he would find 1t conven- tent. One night he alarmed the neighborhood by firing two shots at the ,>moon and on one occasion he threw his wife down and pulled her all over the house. When his supply of whiskey was low he, would buy a quantity of alcohol and mix the two. Then he would fight with his finger nails. After he had served his term In the state prison he called so often to see his wife that she found it ex- pedient to keep the door locked and at last to get clear of him altogether she kept the door locked. Olga, his daughter, testified against him, and the petition was granted. .. .
 John Brown, of 6S East Clay street, sued Kate Brown, charging desertion. Brown said his wife was a widow with five children when he first went to board in her house on Railroad Hill street. One child, Annie, was born of her second union. He had $1S5 after the marriage and Brown said his wife never let up on him until she had induced him to give 1t to her. And then she began putting him out of the house. "She got sour on me-" was his expression, but no one could see what reason she had for becoming thus until toward the end of his testimony, when he said to the judge: Well then I'll tell you" That's what We would like to know" said the court, And Brown said the reason was because he used ito play at kitchen rackets." Find ing she could not get rid of him by locking him out she had the prose- cutting attorney write him to keep away and then she had Attorney F. P. Guilfoile and Constable E. J. Don- ahue go to the house and give him a timely warning to keep off the prem ises or he would be sorry. That set- tied 1t; he kept away but he made oyertures toward peace and his wife told him that she did not need hus- band and she would not have mar ried him any way only she was a second hand woman. She had her own children to support her. Attor- ney Guilfoile, Mir Donahue, James Synott and Browns landlady, Mrs Kate Ocean testified. Decision was reserved. Attorney Russell present. ed this case.
 On the grounds that he deserted her nine years ago Mrs Mary E. Bis hop asked for a divorce from her hus- band William F. Bishop. In 1870 this couple married in Torrington and five children were born to them. Bishop was a drinking man and when he went away he was absent a year. His daughter, Mrs Minnie Clark, said he was always full. !" Mrs Clark was employed by A. w. Goldsmith and sometimes her father used to work for him also. Thus they frequently met. but he was generally always in that condition which she designated as full" He had been away about year when he returned and determined to lead a better life. But the attempt was a failure. He got home one day his wife said, and "he was so full he didn't know his name" Lately he used to work for the Salvation Army but not as a soldier. A decree was allowed in this case.
 The last case heard was that of Mrs Elizabeth Elvira Grooms Fretz against Louis Richard Fretz. The de fendant is employed by the Scovill Manufacturing company. There was a question of alimony In this matter Mrs Fretz ascertained that her bus band had s2.00O somewhere. but where was the question. If she could find out she might perhaps be en- titled to one-third of 1t for the sup port of her three children. This couple married on September 3. 1890, In New York. After living some years in that city and Brooklyn they moved to Waterbury and lived ou Tracy avenue and at 2S4 North Main street. At times the petitioner was employed by the Waterbury Clock company and also at nursing. Fretz did not like his wife to work but she felt compelled to do SO to make both ends meet. He had a habit of pull ing her around the floor by the hair and jumping all over her and locking her up and making threats They had lot of trouble about money. She wanted 1t deposited in both their names. He did not object tc this and one time they banked $500. But