Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1909-05-08
WILLlMANTlC.
Short Calendar Session of Superior
Court-Asslgnment of cases-Two
Divorce Gases Heard.

At the SNORT calendar session OF the
superior court Friday mornino Joel H.
Reed. judge. these cases were assigned:
Jury cases ON the civil list-C. Edwin
Bowen VS.. the Connecticut company;
timothy T. Shea, administrator, VS..
Michael T. Shea, administrator; Tim
othy I. Shea and James H. Shea VS..
Michael T. Shea, administrator for
Tuesday, May is. c. E. Macfarlane VS..
the Willimantic Gas and Electric Light
company a court case, was assigned
for May 18th. Calvin Wilcox VS..
Dwight w. Thrall went off the list.
Ernestine Dussaume VS.. the French
River Textile company and Stowell L..
Burnham VS. the New York, New Ha-
ven and Hartford Railroad company
were allowed to remain on the list and
in all probability Will be tried in Put
nam, Judge Reed taking the jury there.
Judge Reed ordered that the appel
liant in the case of. George E. Topliff's
appeal from probate file reason for
same within two weeks.
James M. Grants appeal from pro-
bate stands on list awaiting the recov-
cry of Attorney c. A. Capen, counsel
for the appellant. Attorney Hunter
stated to the court that Attorney Capen
was very Ill and in the opinion of ply
sicians would be unable to do any
thing for at least two weeks. Attor-
matter, but .signified their desire for
trial during the present term.
Two More Criminal Cases.
Acting States Attorney E. Frank
Bugbee stated to the court that there
were two more criminal cases to be
tried which would consume two days
next week. They are state VS.. Louis
Dupre, stolen goods, and state VS.. John
Lynch, charged with cruelty to bull.
Putnam Wife Seeks AIimony.
Mrs. Nancy NJ. Caffrey petitioner for
a divorce from Patrick Caffrey, both
Of Putnam. was examined in relation
to her petition for alimony. Stated
that she worked in the mill as weaver
and supported her two children, a boy
of five and a girl of twelve, on 81 a
week, which was her average wage.
The husband is also a weaver and
earns in the vicinity of SO weekly.
He had contributed nothing toward
their support the past two years and is
now living with another woman. The
alimony is pending the action. Judge
Reed continued the matter for a week
in order that notice of the motion
might be sent to the defendant by reg
istered letter. Action for divorce was
brought March 6, 1909, the grounds
being intemperance and cruelty.
This concluded the short calendar
and no further assignments were
made.
State VS.. Delileux and ST. Andry.
The trial Of the criminal case Of the
state VS.. Delilieux and st. Andry was
resumed. Judge Russell Of Putnam be-
ing again on the stand with the rec
ords Of his court with reference to the
cases Of Delilieux in other scrapes. At
10 "a he aranGaA
that all of the testimony substantiated
by the admittance Of the court records
be stricken out; objection was over
ruled and an exception taken.
Petitioner Would Not Take Oath.
The jury was excused for a recess
and while it was absent the uncontest-
ed divorce of Margery Dilworth VS..
Otto Dilworth was taken up. Attor-
ney Browning Of Norwich appeared for
the petitioner.
Margery Dilworth. petitioner, when
called to the stand, said that she had
conscientious scruples about taking an
oath and would prefer to affirm under
penalty Of perjury This was done and
she testified that she lived IN Canter-
bury; married Otto Dilworth July %,
1898; on July 10, 1905, her husband
deserted her and she had not lived
with him since; the last she had heard
from him he was in Philadelphia, Pa.
The abusiveness Of her husband led to
the separation, his conduct toward her
being such as to make her a nervous
wreck, as when they separated she
weighed but 1913 pounds. Husband was
prOfane and his actions worried her
greatly. He even threw a stick at her
upon one occasion. One day, the clock
being wrong. he broke it with a shot
gun.
Court Granted Decree.
Examination by the judge disclosed
the fact that she had been teaching
school since separation. A number Of