Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1918-05-06
COURTS OF COUNTY
BEGIN MAY TERM
Divorce Cases Heard Today by
Judges Hciscl and
Rice.

With a somewhat lengthy set of dockets
before them-civil, argument list, di-
vorce and criminal--the County Courts
opened this morning for the May term,
the final sitting before the usual long
vacation" which begins at the end OF tins
term and runs until the wheels OF the
machinery of equity and justice are
started again IN September. Judges K &C
and Hclscl arc the Jurlsts sitting Tor the
term.
There arc IS cases on the civil list,
Is on the argument docket ~ divorce
cases Ia he tried and IS divorce suits
heard at past terms up for final DEGREES
The criminal docket for the term Is likely
10 be about the same length rs usual at tins
season Of the wear and to contain a mum
bcr of eases Of moro than ordinary interest
When court opened this morning the
first business transacted was the dispatch
of the grand jury 10 its quarters and
its work for the term. Judge Rice IN
formed the jurNmCn that there was moth
ing of an unusual nature Ia come before
them. and the Jury retired to begin ITS
labors Court then went over the d.
vorcc Inst. aSccrtaining what cases were
ready for trial. the first day Of the session.
rs usual. being set aside for the hearing Of
woes of mismatcd couples desiring
severance of the marriage relation About
30 eases were found "a lc in shape for
hearing
OF these Judge EIciscl took IL casc~ for
trial in Court Room No. >, while judge
Rice remained IN Court Room No. with
!, list of = cases.
The first suit TO he heard was that Of
Rcan T. Duncan against Paul I. Duncan.
asking for divorce on the grounds of de
scrtIon and ,ahitual drunkenness. Wit
bu' Adams represented Mrs Duncan.
who said she and Duncan were married
February %. 1915. and the, lived to-
gCthcr IN t. city at various places
Including her fathers homc and his
mothers. until November Is 1915 when
they separated. Mrs Duncan returning to
her mother 5 During this pcrIod, she said
he drank great deal and did not treat
her properly and that since separation hc
Mas failed to provide 2 home for her or
support her She wishes To resume her
maIdcn name, Jennings The couple
had no children After some corrohora-
tory evidence = decree nl>l was granted,
ne defence ocing submitted
The case oi Lena T. Barnett against
James Barnett with counsel for the
petitioner the same aS IN the previous case.
WAS next heard. Mrs Barnett ground Tor
seeking divorce was extreme cruelty,
alleged 20 nave been inflicted hv her
husband. prlor to their parting early thi~
wear. She declared that ON q number az
occasions he had threatened hCr ifc.
saving that he would shoot her. and / lat
frequently when intoxicated he would
strike her Mrs Rarnctt's mother cor
roloratcd the testimony regarding the
striking and threats \ decree nlsi vas
ordered there being no defence
The next case was that of Niarv f.
:Snur against Alfred f. Shlr. IT, the
allegation Of the petitioner hcng that
Shur had deserted her. Mrs ShIr sand Shc
and Shur were married in 1891 in Camden
on January
He Is 4 papcrhangcr and i nov. It Is
said, Ii Trenton, y J Three Years ago.
Mrs Shut SAID, he told her that he could
no longer support her and that She would
have 10 come ~ this city and live With ncr
son hY a former marriage Since then he
has gwen ncr only about So toward her
support William T LYMAN, represent
ing Alr$ Shar, presented some ftIrtncr
evidence in slIhstanfation the petition
cr's caSet and ggdgc Rice ordered decree
nsi
The chsc to follow was that Of Lewis "
Zcblcv against Ethel NJ ZcbIcy on the
ground pf dc~{rtIon /chley u member Of
the First Delaware Regiment. SAID that
wnen he and hi> wife parted il was be- |
Caus@ Mrs /chlcv refused to come To this |
city and live With him, SAVING she wanted /
to be rs far away a osshle Later he ,
said. he found She wa~ living under her
maiden name IN New York
Her present whereabouts Zcblcv testi-
fed, are not known to HIM Decision was
reserved.
Dcscrtion was alleged as he reason for
the petition Of MARY Saddlcr asking
divorce from John L Saddler Mrs
Saddlcr said they had lived together only
ono wear Since their separation. thirteen
wears ago. she declared. he has been living
with another woman John T Lynn,
representing the petitioner, placed other
witnesses on the stand to support the
wifcs testimony and i decree nsl was
ordered
Horace G. EaStburn represented the
next petitioner Martha j. NOlloway, who
asked divorce from John 4 Solloway. on
the ground Of extreme cruelty. They were
married In ASburv NJ L. Church. here,
February % 1896 She SAID that while |
they lived together he threatened her with
various weapons. including razor and
once threw her ont Of q chair lnJuring her
elbow 80 severely that she suffered from
the effects Of it for six weeks Once he
drew the razor across her throat while she
WAS apparently sleeping She didn't dare
to move. thinking if she did he would cut
her. This sort Of treatment began. she
sand within three months after marriage.
They parted finally on December 3. 1916
Mrs SotlOwaN desired the custody OF the
three Youngest of her four children
Mrs >olioway sister sand that she
knew SolIovay had threatened and ill.,
treated Mrs oullOway. gotten drunk
and neglected both her and the
children. \ son-in-law said >olloway once
had told him he intended to Kill ms wife
and himself. A decree nisi was granted
The case OF Eliza Nalcria Connolly
against George Haas Connolly was next