Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1909-06-18
COUNTY COURT.
Continued from Page IL

| NOoutluueu ITOm rage L.
and Henry Ketcham va. Helen E. Ket-
oham having the right of way. This
controversy comes from Vergennes and
the testimony on the womans side was
mostly taken last March, when the hus-
band asked for a continuance on account
OF the absence of an important witness,
and the continuance was granted under
an order that SIS temporary alimony be
paid to the wife before trial at this term.
j. E. Cushman of Burlington appeared
as counsel for Mrs Ketcham and Messrs
Frank L. Fish and Frank w. futile of
Vergennes represented the husband.
The lady bases her claim for divorce
on the grounds of intolerable severity
and neglect and refusal to support. Mr..
ketcham also sets up intolerable severity
and in addition alleges desertion. The
parties were married at Vergennes in
| 1884. Mr.. Ketcham was then al years of
age and ii was hie fret marriage. Mrs.
ketcham was seven years younger and
had been married once before. For
many years Mr.. Ketcham was a member
of the firm of Smith & Ketcham, manu-
facturers of furniture, but for several
years past he has conducted the business
alone, his partner having died. He is
counted in comfortable financial circum-
stances and Mrs. Ketcham also has
money in her own right, having received
property from her former husband and
| from the estate of her father. Mr.. Ket-
cham is member and deacon of the
| Baptist church in Vergennes. Mrs. Ket-
cham has also attended that church.
A son, now 90 years old, was born of
the marriage and since his birth in Octo-
hnr s.Ln lus. 81
been for much of the time in very poor
health. She had numerous nurses and
female attendants at different times and
the gist of her complaint against her hus-
band was that he did not extend to her
the support, kindness and sympathy
to be expected by a wife from her
husband under such circumstances.
This was manifested to a considerable ex-
tent by his unwillingness that she should
have what she deemed was necessary,
medical attendance and other proper care
and such nourishment as she thought
she ought 70 have. Finally in August
last Mrs. Ketcham left her husbands
home, with the result that on the first
day of December, 1908, she brought her
petition for divorce in this court. On
the same day. Mr.. Ketcham's cross-bi)l
was put on file.
In his half of the case MIR. Ketcham
maintained that his wifes illness was
largely imaginary, if not feigned entire
Y, and that there had been no necessity
for all the medical attendance which she
had had, nor, for much of the time, any
necessity for the presence of nurses and
other female attendants; and he claimed
that she had been furnished everything
necessary for her support and well-being.
He gave as some specific instances of her
intolerable severity, her throwing radi-
ator at him on one occasion; her throw
ing the checkers with which they were
playing all over the room. her moving
all his personal effects and belongings
from their room and the parlor and the
sitting room into a back chamber. her
locking the door of their former joint
room against him and her persistent de-
nial to him of his marital rights.
The taking of testimony in this case
was continued until Thursday afternoon
and will probably be completed this fore
noon. Mr.. Ketcham was on the stand
for three hours Tuesday, all day We'd
nesday and for half an hour Thursday
morning. At the conclusion of his
cross-eXamination Wednesday evening,
the court asked him if he was willing,
after all that had passed, to receive Mrs.
Ketcham back again as his wife and
treat her as such in all ways as he should
and he answered that he was. 1t de.
veloped while he was on the stand that
efforts had been made by persons acting
in Mrs. Ketchams interests or supposed
interests, some time ago. to induce him
to give Mrs. Ketcham $500 outright and
let her go her own way as she pleased in
the future, with a similar privilege for
himself. This proposition did not strike
him in the right spot and it was declined
without thanks.
When the hearing in this case is COM
pleted a recess will be taken until two
O'Clock p. m. on Monday, June %, when
another contested divorce case which
was heard in part during the December
term will come on again. This is Lunia
&. Walston VS.. George F. Walston and
the case comes down from Lincoln.
There was brief hearing during a lull
in the divorce case Wednesday afternoon
in the case of Myron Kelsey va. James
r. Grace, appellant. This is an action
in trover and comes from Leiceste No
Judgment was announced. w. A. At
well of Brandon represented Mrs. Kelsey
and Charles F. Kingsley of Salisbury APP
peared for Mr.. Grace.
In the divorce case of Josephine Labou
VS.. Eugene Labou, from Vergennes,
heard last week Thursday, a decision
was announced granting the bill On the
ground of intolerable severity.
In the Ketcham divorce case the court
at o'clock rendered decision granting
Mrs. Ketcham divorce on the ground
of intClerable severity and awarding her
$4,000 almony. Lawyer Fish took ex
cepnons to the decision and an appeal
will be made.