Putnam patriot., 1911-10-13


 brother Walter was coming up the street and she said he would Kill her if she talked to him. They next went to Norwich and he bought her so coat. Saw her two weeks later and she wanted to go to Providence and buy coat AS she did not like the one pur- chased In Norwich. He met her al the station and they went 10 Providence. Got room at the Harvard, a lodging house, and went to the theatre. He bought her S45 fur coat and they came home next night. Also gave her S25. She kept telling him she was coming home. Had been back to his house several times. Told him of al- terations she would like made, and sil- verware she wanted, which he bought. Had seen her several times since writ was served, When he was going to Norwich she asked him to bring her home something and he brought her a hand bag. He would be pleased to have her come home to live. He did not go away on drunks, went on busi- ness When he went he made arrange ments for man to milk. When he was there she said she had rather help him than have a hired man around. He was not intoxicated on the trolley ears and was never put off. Never frequenled road houses. Drank but doesn't get drunk. Has been drink ing less lately Thinks wife's mother has influenced her away. Different members were at his house and would take her aside and whisper to her. They tried to get her away.
 On cross examination said he got drunk occasionally prior to marriage. Three times when he was courting. Recalled two or three other occasions. Had been to Dell Mitchell's to trade horses, but never stayed over night. His wife had never ccme for him there. She never told him she would come back if he'd stop drinking. She never found fault with his drinking. Said wife might have worked in mill night before marriage. He took her to the mill and was drunk at the time. Wood never found him hanging in the buggy and kept him over night. De- nied he was habitually incorporate. After the attorneys had finished the court questioned Stone closely regard ing trip .to Providence the events of which trip were differently related by the parties. The court suggested that 1t was evident that perjury was being committed and he would like more ev- idence as suggested by counsel for plaintiff, who said he would like to produce the aunt and uncle in Provi- dence where plaintiff claimed ito be when defendant said she was with him at the Harvard house. Also evil dence on other points where the par ties were at direct issue.
 The contested divorce case of Stone vs Stone was continued Tuesday morn- ing. The defendant was first put on and told of meeting his wife at Moo- sup station by appointment to go 10 Providence. Stone's father told iof taking his son to the station and of the Son buying the tickets. The woman proprietor of the Harvard, the Provi- dence lodging house, told of Stone's coming there and spending the night with III woman. She was not pos | itive that Mrs. Stone was the woman, h,tf oh hN ha If GatA f was her opinion she was. Witness said she thought the woman she saw was more fleshy. Defendant then tes- tified that his wife told him three or pounds. She weighed 204 when they were in Providence as he saw her weighed on the scales in the station. The plaintiff was recalled and denied making statement about losing 90 pounds, also denied that she was weighed in Providence. Mrs. Anna l Wood was called and corroborated her husbands testimony relative to find- ing Stone with his head on the ground and his feet in the buggy, while drunk, which Stone had denied. Inmates from road houses, one woman, over the Rhode Island line, told of Stones | coming to those places. There was testimony that he twice stayed over night. Once he stayed in the kitchen and once slept in the barn. Edward Shippee of Providence plaintiffs un- | cle, testified that plaintiff stayed at his house over night some time the first of | September. Mrs. Stone again took 1 the stand and made several denials of statements made by her husband. Attorney Torrey for the defence claimed that the reason plaintiff want ed divorce was to enter training for nurses That defendant was habitual- i Iy intemperate when plasntih married him, that plaintiff knew this land that the trip to Providence, during which 1 they stayed together over night, was condonement of any previous ofiense l that might have been committed. 1 The court stated that he did not care to hear from counsel for plaintiff, that I he did not think the evidence warrant l ed finding in accordance with the claims set forth by the defense. He said that he was impressed that there
 had been perjury committed, and he i su ggested that the matter be thorough ly investigated by the States attorney,