Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1910-03-04

An unexpected turn in the contested
divorce case of Freelove A Miller VS.
Everett o. Miller occurred on Thurs
day when the opening effort was made
to bring about a reconciliation of the
couple and family. 1t came at an I'M
expected moment and, surprised by its
suddenness the gathering of witnesses
and spectators as we'll as the plaintiff
some trouble between herself and huS-
band, the witnesses of which she said
were herself, Mr.. Miller and God, -
Attorney Hull asked Mrs. Miller if she
didn't think it better thing for her,
being without support and having the
care of two boys, her condition of
health and all concerned, to go back to
her home and establish relations there
Niller's answer was: 1t is impossible
10 make such a home unless there is a
mutual agreement. Are you willing to
do this? asked Attorney Hull, and she
said: I haven't any home.
There was objection here on the part
of the plaintiffs counsel, claiming it
is too late for such proceedings, and At
torney Hull in response said that the
state as a state is interested in the
maintenance of the marriage relation,
and no time is too late in an inquiry
of this kind which will help bring
about reconciliation If it is possible
that a suit of this kind can be stop
ped the law certainly favors it. Only
at the last term of the court a judge
on this bench took occasion to suggest
that reconciliation ought to be
brought about, even after the case was
tried. If So the attitude of the plain
tiff is of very vital Importance. 1t is
never too late in such cases, if it is be-
fore the legal knife has done it's work.
There is no such thing as being too
late. The plaintiff has said that DR..
Manwarring in her home had advised
it and it seems to have been pretty
good advice.
Is the Defendant Willing?
The court held that the question was
not proper, as it did not show any
willingness on the part of the defend
ant.
Attorney Hull stated that the de-
PENDANT, of course, didn't admit all the
facts testified to in the case thus far,
to which the court replied that nothing
need be admitted, but the defendant
should be willing to do all he should
and ought to do as a husband.
Attorney Hull agreed to ask another
question embodying all that the court
and asked the plaintiff:
provided Mr. Miller is willing on his
agree that he will perform his duty as
a faithful husband and father, are you
willing on your part to enter into
and establishment of
your home and return to him with
your children, as fanily?"
Objection was made to the question
on the part of the counsel for the
plaintiff. Attorney Browning claiming
that the opposing counsel seemed to
forget the questions in the case,
which are certain allegations and de-
malls, which are the questions and the
only ones before the court. The rec
of the court in another
case may have been a good thing, but
[ understand it has not been followed.
The question here is on the allega-
tons. I believe her story. What have
we got in that question? Can you rely
IN his promises? Before the separa-
lion she was willing to undergo almost
anything until at last there came
things which she couldn't endure. IF
she could believe it and if she was
positive of it she would no doubt do
it for the sake of her children. He
that the question had no
bearing at this point and should not