Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1915-06-11

cause set up IN the petition was lntOl-
cradle severity, desertion, adultery and
refusal to support. The parents have
aided her all along in taking care of
herself and the young ones. The bill
was promptly granted, based on the
intolerable severity count, and the
custody of the minor children awarded
to the petitioner. MIR. LaFleur for the
petitioner, and no appearance for the
libellee
Case number three was that of Jen-
ME G. Butler vs.. Lester H. Butler.
These parties were married in Olean,
n. y, November 27, 1899, and came to
live at first in Bristol, to which town
the young woman belonged. Later
they removed to Lincoln, where they
bought a little place and where they
lived until 1911 The petition was
granted without delay on the ground of
wiful deserton. Mr. LaFleur for the
petitioner and again no defense.
The fourth case was Flora A. Tanner
vs.. Albert p Tanner, who We're mar
ried in Colchester April 2S, 1906, when
the husband was a trooper at Fort
Ethan Allen and the wife was employ
ed in the laundry of the Fort. The
grounds set up We're desertion and reg
lect and refusal to support A novel
feature of this case was the statement
of Mrs Tanner, who for several years
! has been living in Addison, and sup
porting herself and her now siX-year-
old daughter by her own labor, that
there had never been any trouble be-
tween her husband and herself and that
they had always lived very happily to-
gether The court took the matter
under consideration and at the opening
of the afternoon session the bill was
granted on the ground of wiful deser-
ton. Leroy c. Russell of Middlebury
represented the petitioner and there
was no appearance for the husband.
In the afternoon the husbands had it
all their own way. The first case up
was George Masterson VS.. Alice Mas
terson. This couple We're married in
New Haven May /, 1908, and lived to-
gether in Bristol until February, 1912.
This petition was based on the ground
of wilful desertion and the bill was
granted. Mr. Russell appeared for the
| libelant and there was no appearance
for the libellee.
The last case was Charles LaMorder
vs. Ann LaMOrder. The pair were
both Middlebury people, but their mar
riage was solemnized in Brandon on
November 26, 1908. Both parties had
been married before and each has chill
dren from the former marriages. The
petition was brought on the ground of
desertion and the bill was granted
without contest. Mr.. Russell was
again the attorney for the petitioner.
After a 40-minutes' session the court
at 2:5O o'clock took a recess until {
clock Tuesday morning.
Tuesday forenoon the first case was
another petition for divorce, Mary
Morgan VS. Jerry Morgan. The ground,
set up We're adultery, intolerable
severity, de sertion and neglect and re
fusal to support. This couple were
married in Bristol in March, lsS2, and
made their home in Middlebury unit
about Is years ago, when Morgan dis
appeared. According to the testimony
the man used to abuse his wife most
shamefully and she had to earn most OF
her own support and that of their chill
drer even while they We're dwelling to-
gether Morgan was given very baC
character by the witnesses. He serveC
a term in the State prison for arson
having set fire to the farm buildings.of 3
neighbor in Middebury The last known
OF him he was living in Rochester, n
Y, with a third wife. The petitioner
is the mother of five children, all now
- grown to maturity. The court granted
divorce on the grounds of wilfu
2 desertion. Judge Charles |. Button o.
Middlebury appeared for the petitioner
and there was no defence.
, In the matter of the petition for sep
} crate maintenance of Sarah f. Nc
Cormack vs. Joseph Z. Mccormack, Mr.
Donoway appeared for the petitioner
in the absence of Mr. Maloney, an,