Norwich bulletin., 1915-03-12
NON SUIT GRANTED IN
 $15,ooo DAMAGE CASE.
Evidence Did Not Show That Daueh ter-in-Law Was Direct Cause of Alienation

Judge William L. Bennett allowed a non-suit motion in the alienation of affection suit of Mrs. Lydia C. Hewitt of Waterford against her daughter-1n- law, Mrs. Alice G. Hewitt of Water ford in the superior court in New London Thursday morning. The suit in which the plaintiff asked $15,000, alleging that the defendant, by her acts and blandishments alienated the affections of her husband, George w. Hewitt, was started Tuesday morning. The case was dismissed by Judge Bennett after a motion by counsel for the defense after the plaintiff had rested its case.
 When counsel came in at 10 o'clock, Cyrus E. Hewitt, son of the plaintiff, who was testifying when court ad- jOurned Wednesday afternoon, was re- called and resumed his testimony. He said that he assisted his father in tracing, drafting and drawing plans for buildings. In September 1914, he was in a room in his parents home in Waterford when he heard them in conversation which became heated. He listened to the argument until it reached an abusive stage, his father calling his mother vile names when he appeared on the scene and told his father to stop.
 George W. Hewitt, husband of the defendant, was recalled and admitted s. | Hewitt when the papers in the present suit were served. He also identified | a bail bond for s15,0O0 given to Dep uty Sheriff Draper on which he went | surety.
 No Objection to Letters.
 The plaintiff who testified Tuesday was recalled. She identified a letter 1 handwriting of her husband. The let ter was to Mrs. Alice Hewitt. At this ] stage of the proceedings Attorney Rathbun for the defense stated tha1 in order to save time he would offel no objection to the admittance of eigh letters in the possession of the plaintiff | as evidence. The letters were dated at various times from June, 1907- At 1 torney Stewart for the plaintiff ther read two of the letters to the jury.
 Attorney Stewart then asked tht witness if there had always been af lection between herself and husband up to the time that Mrs. Alice Hewitt had caused the trouble. The question I was objected to by counsel for tn, 1 defense and it was excluded by tn, court. who ruled that the question haC been asked in previous testimony. II Mrs. Hewitt was then excused anC | Sylvester Jerome was called to talk | the stand. MT. Jerome did not re | spond to his name and Attorne, l Stewart stated to the court that MI Jerome had been subpoenaed and hat | not appeared in court this morning | The court ruled that as the witnes had not been put on the stand Tues day when in court, the case could no be brought to stop. Mrs. Harrie Lane, daughter of plaintiff, was re called. She was asked if her mothe had ever uttered any cross words t her father to which counsel for tn defendant objected and was exclude by the court, after which the plain tiff's attorney announced that he rest ed.
 | Motion for Non- Suit.
 The defendant then made the mo ton for a non-suit. The court di not care to hear the attorney for tn l defendant, but asked the attorney fo the plaintiff if he wished to speak O the motion. Attorney Stewart argue the motion, the jury having been eX cused. He gave a brief resume of tn testimony that had been introduce in which he recited that George Hew itt had visited the home of Mrs. Alic Hewitt repeatedly, at first every tw weeks, then weekly, then daily: dur ing the past three weeks he had mad his home with the defendant; letter had been introduced as evidence, show ing that improper relations existed Attorney Stewart claimed that it mad no difference who was the aggresso
 
 been the aggressor and bestowed hi affections on the woman and the wo man had been the passive recipier of those affections, they had deprive the plaintiff of the love and affectio due her from her husband and de prived her of his conjugal society. was not necessary to prove adultery show alienation of affections. Judge Bennett gave his opinion tha , no evidence had been introduced t show that the defendant was the di rect cause of the alienation which un doubtedly existed between the plain tiff and her husband. He admitte that it was not necessary to show tha the defendant had caused the aliena
 tion by act or deed and he grante
 the motion.
 The judge then had the jury calle
 in and explained to them that a non suit had been granted. Court ad
 journed to 10 o'clock Friday mornin;