Norwich bulletin., 1919-05-24

man. Henry c. Barlow of Ashford Mrs Eva E. Spencer of New ' orh tes tifed to the good character and repu- tation of the plaintiff. Mre. Spencer stating that Mrs. Sherman said to her that she would never live with her husband again.
 The uncontcsted divorce case of Louisa 4. Taylor vs. Thomas A. Fay lor Mas next called. Mrs. Taylor tes-i .tiiea that eher husband failed to sup port her: that he had spent several
 terms In prison for forging checks and
 raising money orders. Decision in the
 case was rcecrvcd by Judge Greene.
 In tho uucoutested diTorce case Of
 Alfred W. Elliott vs, Della Lavinia
 Elliott. plaintiff testified that after
 living with him for six months, his
 wife left him. Ills asked her to re-
 turn. which ahe refused to do. He said
 his wife thought It would be better for them to live apart. There was no reason why she should leave him.
 Frank r.. Williams and Mrs. Elliott the latter the mother of the plaintiff, testified in behalf of the latter and the divorce was granted on the grounds of, desertion.
 The last divorce case to De heard was that of Mabel l.. Rood vs. Clinton c. Rood. This case was also uncon- tested. Mrs. Rood testified to her husband having left her in August, 1915, and of his not living with her since. She asked him to return and live with her but he refused. Chief of Police Killourey and Howard F. Brown, brother of the plaintiff. tes- tified in behalf of the wife and the divorce was granted on the grounds of | desertion, Mrs. Rood was given the custody of her daughter.
 In the case of Harry Weinstein vs. | Samuel and Morris Spectors. the re- ceiver, Ernest P. Chesbro made his re-
 porti which proved satisfactory to the attorneys in the case. The receiver
 was allowed $1e0 for his services and
 the matter of disposing of the remain
 ing funds. will be decided at a date to fbe agreed upon.
 The civil case of Charles M. Adams vs. the N. T.. N. H. S5 H. R. R. Co. was
 then taken up. The plaintiff was the 1 the accident which happened to him when he fell into a coal hole on de- 1 fendant's property at the railroad sta i tion in Danielson. Men were engaged 1 in putting the coal into the cellar o1 the station at the time and they had Itleft the hole open and not guarded iT a proper manner to warn people. Hs came along the platform, reading . letter and stepped into the hole. and
 as a result. he said, was severely in jured, sustaining a fracture of twt ribs Further testimony in regard tt the accident was given by the plain tiff after which he was cross exam ined by, Attorney James W. Carpente' for the defendant. At this point thi court adjourned for the noon recess. At 215 D. m. Leon Reneault Q Brooklyn was called to the stand b.
 Attorney Back, counsel for the plain tiff. Witness described the .aeciden and was briefly cross examined b.
 Attorney Carpenter. Charles H. Ba lE con .of ~Danielson, the next witness , told of seeing the accident and cor roborated the testimony of the plain
 | tiff. His testimony was not material
 Fly changed in the cross examina tio l by Attorney Carpenter. Dr. Judson, : physician of over forty years' expert l ence, the next witness, testified 5 having attended Mir. Adams and C f having found him with two fracture : ribs. After a short cross exarninatio t by Attorney Carpenter. the latter en ? tered a motion for a non-suit. claim | inE contributary negligence on tn :. part of the plaintiff. This was or l posed by Attorney Back and after fur ] ther hearing, counsel for the defend ntest the motion was denied by Jude y l Greene.
 F + Mir. OeConnell. station agent at Dan
 ielson, was then called to the stan I by Attorney Carpenter and was fol n lowed by Michael Peters; both claim h cd that the accident was not due i t the earelessness or negligence of en1 S ployes Of the defendant company. Wi h liam T. Craig also testified in regar t to the accident and of having helpe r MT. Adams out of the coal hoie. TheS