Norwich bulletin., 1914-04-25
DIVORCE CASES IN
 SUPERIOR COURT

Three Granted by Superior Court
 Two Wives and One Husband Were
 the etitlonsrs-Norwich Mans Ps-
 titien to Be Further lnvestig ated--
 Wife in Waterford Writes Letter.
 Three divorces, all on the uneontest- ed list, were granted by Judge Milton A. Shumway at the short calendar session of the superior court hefe on Friday, but one petitioner failed to secure the divorce he sought, The judge took the papers in this case Tor further investigation.
 On the grounds that she was de- serted by her husband Walter Gilbert Woodwork. now of Hartford. Myrtle Belle Woodworth of New London' whose maiden name was Barrows, was given a divoco from him. They were married April 12, 1905 and she claimed that he deserted her in August live wears later. The wife was given the custody of a six year old son.
 In answer to the question or her counsel. Attorney c. H. Hull, Mrs. W pedworth said that her husband went and that she is supported, wieh her year old son, by her father in New London Her husband has not sup ported her nor written to her since he went to Hartford.
 Talked About Another Woman.
 John H. Dayton of New London tes- tlfed to nearing Woodwork talk about another woman and say that he was going to leave his wife and live in Chicago.
 For his wife's unfatithfulness to her marriage vows, Milbur E. Otis of East Lyme was granted a divorce from Rl- ta NJ Otis of Litchfield, whose maiden name was Clark and to whom he was married on December 1s, 1911 at Win chester Conn, by Rev. J. w. Osmun. The acts of infidelity were alleged to have been committed at Lyme and elsewhere between that date and No- vember | 1913 John H. Barnes was attorney for MT. Otis.
 Wife Liked to Fiirt.
 Mir. Otis testified that his wife liked to flirt with other men and she once kept house for a MT, Corbin for four weeks, and told her husband that she lived with MT. Corbin his wife. In answer to other questions from Attor- hey John Fl. Barnes. who was eounsel for Mfr Otss. the latter told that his wife had besn arrested in several cities for street walking, and although ne had tried to got her to live right it had been no use.
 Judge Shumway asked the witness number of questions as to the witness own mode of life and as to condoning the way his wife had lived.
 Sergeant Patrick Hayes of the Put nam police testified to the habits of Mrs. Otis while at a Putnam hotel.
 Unbelievable cruelty was the grounds upon which May NJ. Vallee of New London obtained divorce from William H. Vallee of parts unknown. They were married on October 27, 1909, tho wites maiden name being Mercy and the cruel acts of which she complained were alleged to have taken place since January 1, 1911. The wife was given the custody of a minor child.
 Husband Broke Up the Home.
 Mrs. Vallee- gave testimony that she had been married but 6 short etim when her husband began to beat her. They lived in New Haven, Boston and Springfield, but he pawned her rings and broke up their home so that she had to go to her parents in New Lon don.
 Once before she had started action for divorce, but she withdrew it at the request of her husband. Later she often was beaten by her husband and had to go to a hospital on account of his treatment of her. He was addicted to drink, she told her counsel, Attor- ney G. C. Morgan. but she loved him and trier to live with him.
 The plaintiffs mother, Mrs. Adiie Mowry. of New London, told of seeing her daughter beaten by Vallee
 Armstrong Divorce Suit.
 The divorce suit of William H. Arm zli ttlE O- lttlS NAtS dSdiiAoA A-iid 1I1iAtNto Armstrong. alleged to be of parts un- known, was presented by his attorney, Telley E. Babcock.
 When called to the stand Mir. Arm strong testified that he was born in this city and has lived here continu- ously since 1873, marrying in 1880, and that his wife left him in 1901. He had not heard from his wife since. At that time sine left him to live win rel atives on the West Side. He said hz-a uf,ln hotuJ has m, account of his wife wanting to keep 9 lot of poor relatives in her home
 Judge Shumway questioned Mir. Armstrong about living in Sterling and also asked him if he had not been married before. to which the witness gave the court to understand that Ella Daniels was his only wife.
 Mrs Jessie H. Mcdowell ef Hedge avenue ttstifed to knowing the Arm strong family when they lived Tn a house owned by her grandmother, and she knew about Mrs. Armstrong leav- ing the home,
 Mrs. Grace n. Miller of Town street testified that she knew Mrs. Arrn- strong sold the household goods and left her husband.
 Letters From Wife in Waterford.
 Then Judge Shumway called Mir. Armstrong up in front of the desk and questioned him sharply after having him look at a letter which Mrs. Arm strong had written from Waterford to the assistant clerk of the court
 Mir. Armstrong said he would not swear that the writing in the letter was that of his wife but it looked very much like it.
 The letter said that Mrs. Armstrong was in Waterford and that she had little time to read the paper but that a neighbor had shown her the printed order of notice in the divorce suit that her husband was bringing. In the letter she wrote Armstrong would be a bigamist if he married again for he had married a wife the year before he married her in 1879, and she did not know about it until she found the marriage certificate in a trunk She wrote that the, other womans name was Arsoid and that she was married to Armstrong by Justice Bitgood in Sterling and was now living in Prov idence Mrs. Armstrong further wrote that she had worked hard for her hus- band. doing washing for railroad men and that she had left him after he had kicked and injured her.
 Mir. Armrtrong admitted to the court that he married a, girl who was about 1e but a lawyer told him. right before his father and mother, that the marriage was illegal. and he paid the lawyer S10 to have the marriage taken off the records.
 Judge Shumway told the petition