Norwich bulletin., 1915-06-19

Divorce matters at the superior court short calendar session here on Friday were reached at o'clock in the afternoon, beginning with the case of Maurice A. Wilson of New London against Lottie Ussher Wilson of the same place. It was brought on the grounds of adultery.
 He is an electrician. They were married in Westerly by Rev. J. L. Peacock on March 4, 1907 the plaintiff testified. About four months after they were married he refused to live with her, he said, because his wife was in a delicate condition, but they lived together again after three weeks, but finally separated some time later. This was because of some things he had learned about his wife and which she admitted. MT. Wilson told of watch ing outside a house in Boston, in May, 1914. He saw his wife come out and meet a man, go for a walk and re- turn. Later a, man in an auto came to the house and went in. Late at night, with the police, MT. Wilson gained admission and found Mrs. Will son and a man in bed
 Stanley D. Barnes a merchant of New London, testified that Lotue Ussher Wilson's associates for the past year had been of very doubtful char acter and the women she went with were street walkers.
 Frank T. Howard, a New London policeman, said that he had seen her often within the past two years with the class of girls called street walkers.
 James J. Monahan. a chauffeur, tes- tiled to having gone to Boston for MT. Wilson in May. 1914, and he corrobo- rated the husbands statement about finding Mrs. Wilson and a man in the house in Boston
 The divorce was granted on the grounds of adultery. Attorney John c. Geary. representing the petitioner.
 Mrs. Wilson filed a petition for di- Vorce originally and then her husband entered a ross-cOmplaint alleging adultery. It was this latter case that was decided by granting a decree Of divorce. She was a witness in one Of the unsavory cases involving New London people which was tried in the superior court here this spring.
 Made It Miserable for Both.
 George w. Macomber of Voluntown, who was represented by Attorney from Alice M. Macomber, who the plaintiff said was IT when he mar ried her on January 1, 1910. He sued on the grounds of desertion.
 They boarded for while after their marriage and about ? 1-2 years after wards they went to housekeeping. His wife left him a year ago on Thurs day. He testified that she refused to be a wife to him and she told people she didn't care anything for him. One time he told her that she was mak- ing it miserable for both of them and she said she would kill herself, but he told her she needn't do that, but that she had better get out and she could suit herself. The next daW she left. She displayed very little interest in the house about getting the meals or taking any care of the house. She still lives in Voluntown.
 Mrs. Grace Dawley of VOluntown said that Mrs. Macomber had told her she didn't like her husband and she would never live with him and she wanted Q home of her own.
 Mrs. Mary Burch of Foluntown also testified that Mrs. AIacomber had told her she didn't love her husband and she never said anything against him.
 A cousin of the defendant, George B. James, was also a, witness, and said that it was very plain that Mrs. Ma conber did not like to be with her husband She avoided him at every opportunity, but MT. MaComber cer- tainly did his part as a husband in the estimation of the witness.
 Judge Greene directed Attorney Shields to file briefs.
 Husband HabituaIIy Intoxicated.
 The third case taken up was that of Olive Mills Judd of Lebanon vs. George Judd. of Hartford. Thomas NJ. Shields was attorney for the petition CT
 Mrs. Judd testified that they were married on Sept. T, 1904 and she claim ed assertion since Aug. l. 1907 and habitual intOxication for more than year past. They lived in Hartford after marriage for three years. Be- fore marriage she said that she had h1y- r. but afterwards he was frequently drunk. His habits drained the family finances. He would be drunk for sev- eral days at time. In short time she left him, but later returned to him through the intercession of her hus- bands mother. Mrs. Judd told the judge that she had information that he had continued his habits of intoxi- cation since she finally left him and she had reason to believe that he had been intoxicated practically all the time.
 The father of Mrs. Judd, George o. Mills, seIectman of the town of Col chester, said he had seen Judd lying by the side of the road in Colchester intoxicated, and had seen him at other times intoxicated. On two occasions when the witness had seen Judd, the man had been sober. One of these times was the time he got married at the home of the witness.
 William J. Thomas of Colchester. a brother of Mrs. Judd, also testified to seeing Judd lying intoxicated by the side of the road.
 Attorney Shields read dispositions from the mother of MT. Judd and an employer of MT. Judd, one telling of the excessive drinking on the part of the defendant and the other telling of times when he was discharged from because of intoxication. Both dispositions stated that MT. Judd's habits as to intoxication had grown gradually worse.
 Judge Greene granted the divorce on the grounds of habituaI intemperance and gave the petitioner right to re- sume her maiden name of Olive Mills.
 Other Women Had Attraction.
 Attorney Clayton B. Smith presented the suit Of Mary Kenyon Boynton of New London against Fred s. Boynton of East Cambridge.
 They were married in Springfield, 20 n.