The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1917-11-14
80 DIVORCES
AREG GRANTED
Washington County Court
Gives Long List of
Decisions
OTHER CASES ARE
DISPOSED OF
The Term Is Expected to
End To-mor-
row

county court to-day that court would b
in session Thursday, it was expected a
it was impossible to clean up the matter
this afternoon as some followers of tn,
court had looked for. During to-day ant
yesterday afternoon decisions were giveI
in divorce cases which have been hearC
during the term, 32 divorces being grant
ed Several other decisions were given.
, Decisions in divorce cases were an
nounced as follows: Myrtle Ingerson vs.
Albert Ingerson, dismissed, petitioner
having left the state; lnez Marsden VS.
John Marsden, bill granted for desertion
petitioner to resume maiden name; Irene
l.. Close VS.. William A. Close, granted for
intoerable severity, custody of minor
child given to petitioner, $50 alimony to
be paid within 90 days; Rose 4. Baker
VS.. William A. Baker, granted for deser-
tion; Sophia John vs.. Joseph John, dis
missed.
Mary Coryer VS.. Edward Coryer, grant
ed for neglect and refusal to support,
minor. child given to petitioner, $40 suit
money to be paid before Dec. /, S. n
week aimony thereafter; Lucy Hedges
VS.. James b. Hedges granted for intoler-
able severity, custody of minor children
to petitioner with aIimony; Martha b.
Haggett VS.. Raymond D. Haggett, dis
missed; William Nugent VS.. Lucia Nu-
gent, granted for adultery. minor chill
dren to petitioner; Evelyn Laughin vs.
Ellsworth Laughlin, granted for intoler
able severity.
Mary Darby vs. Thomas Darby, grant
ed for intolerable severity. minor children
to petitioner alimonv 81 a week; Nellie
Buxton VS., Charles Buxton, granted for
adultery; Belle Molloy vs.. Harry Mol
10y. dismissed Salvatore Prsrio VS..
Carolina Prario, granted for adultery;
George wilkins VS.. Achsa wilkins, grant
ed for desertion; Norma Ray vs. John
Ray. granted for desertion: Harriet Var
ney vs.. Watson Varney. granted for re-
fusal to support custody of minor chill
dren TO petitioner, $40 a month alimony
commencing Jan |, 1916.
j. Naomi Fowler ys. Harry c. Fowler,
granted for refusal to support. minor
children to petitioner; Eva Locklin vs..
Arthur Locklin, granted for intolerable
severity; Attilio 0lgiati vs.. Mary o.
giati. granted for desertion; Tibbets VS..
1lDDettS, granted LOT uesefIlun.
Edith j. Clark VS. Frank Clark, grant
ed for desertion. petitioner given leave
to resume maiden name~and have Gus
tody of minor child; Flora Garrow vs. |
f. L. Garrow granted for desertion; |
Blanche Badord vs. Louis Badord grant |
ed for intolerable severity. petitioner to !
resume her maiden name of Blanche Kid |
der Howard Sumner VS.. Della Sumner, |
granted for desertion; Mabel Cotton VS.. |
Truman Cotton, granted for refusal to |
support John Keefe vs., Della Keefe, |
granted for desertion; Ferna S. Robinson
VS. Ernest Robinson, granted for intoler
able severity. petitionee TO pay SO week
alimonv beginning Dee. /: Antonio Aliria
vs. Forbia Airia, granted for refusal to
support, petitioner to have custody of
minor child; Clara LaFever vs.. William
LaFever, dismissed Flora Carpenter VS..
John r Carpenter. granted for deser
tion, petitioner to have custody of mi
nor child Josephine Bailey vs. NJ. 0.
Bailey, dismissed
The court announced that this com
oleted all divorce cases excepting three
n which there were questions of alimony
Other Cases Disposed OF.
In the case of Angie Frattini VS.. Mario !
Zanleon, bastardy, the court announced :
o attorneys that the defendant would
nave to give additional bail, intimating
hat the finding of facts was for sum
If $500 The attorney for the defendant !
that the defendant would be in 5
ourt during the day and pay the iudg- 6
nent that might be fixed in the finding
# facts.
In the matter Of the H. c. Bolles VS. Z
he City Of Montpelier, relative to the !
aying of street, f. L. Laird appeared, :
the names of J. Ward Carver,
A. Sargent and j. W Gordon as
ourt's commission in laying out the :
treet Attorney G. L. Hunt asked for
clay until Thursday, that he might con-
er with the city council in the matter. :
In the matter of Gould against the ?
ity of Montpelier relative to laying an :,
Their street. Mr.. Laird stated he and his
lent did not care about further action, 4
Though he was the appealing party; \
ut if the city took further action they
-ould oppose it, because the damages
ssessed. in their belief. are too small.
In the case of Peter LeClair against
Ne Montpelier & Wells River railroad, v
{ G. Shurtleff presented motion asking
n the setting aside of the verdict re-
Hned by the jury, in which he claimed
rat the verdict was against the evi- "
ance. and that it was against the weight
the evidence. meaning by this. that :,
ie damages returned were excessive as ;,
lsed upon the evidence submitted The -
aintifT was given 5000 damages for in ~
ries received when his blacksmith shop Y
as smashed
III the case Of Vermont Real Estate Y.
,encv VS. John H. Kelley and trustees. q.
e defendant waived exceptions taken '''
the auditors report. and Judgment
r. 5000. with interest from SEPT H.
rs. and costs was directed by the court
During yesterday afternoon ATTORNEYS Ri
the Clogston viii case argued petitions
airing upon the case. i " Gordon ard
T. Hunt argued costs for the propo-
nj Of the will and. a reasonable sum lis
r ATTORNEYS fec. while i. T. Laird ard -r
e. ShurtleG argued costs Tar the con- tr
-taut- of the VIII Later "a the afte-- I
IN The court gave ! decision whica 81.
= for the contestants 81 II Over their Ca
-t- Tslav ~ ~ Eu fifl cs,eu- bu
u- ta Ne decision a
The ra-e AZ Dodge brothers s.. tie g.
CONTINUED on eighth Pagsl A