Norwich bulletin., 1920-05-27
Norwich Bulletin, wiIlimantic Office ga Church St. Telephone 1O5.
What Is Going On Tonight.

What Is Going On Tonight
 Camp No. 9546, M. W. A, meets at 751 Main street
 Trinity Chapter, No. g, R. A. M, meets at 7S1 Main street.
 Obwebetuck Lodge. No. Is, l. o. o. F.. meets at S07 Main street.
 Testimony in the divorce suit of Mil dred l.. Byron vs. Jesse F. Byron, in wwhich the custody of the three minor children is the bone of contention, was completed Wednesday morning before Judge John E. keeler in the superior court. After hearing the arguments by the attorneys, Frank H. Foss for the plaintiff and Samuel B. Harvey for the defendant, Judge Keeler reserved his de- cision.
 Witnesses heard Wednesday for the defense included Mrs Gertrude E. Jack son. Mrs. Helen J. Danahey and Mrs. Eliza T. Chaney, neighbors. and James Y. Bath, treasurer of the H. c. Murray company in this city, with whom the Byrons had an account. The first three witnesses testified that the little girls, who were in the care of MT. Byron, ap- peared cleaner and better dressed after their mother had left home. Mrs. Jack son told of noticing that Mrs. Byron and her brother-in-law were together often, visiting the moving pictures, also plaintiff called on the younger Byron while he was rlerking in a local hotel and her husband was at work
 Mrs. Danahey in discussing the mari tai troubles of the Byrons, declared that it was six of one and half a dozen of the other. She had often heard Mrs. Byron call her husband as many names as he is alleged to have called his wife. Mrs Danahey said that the plaintiff told her of the occasion when she let a carpenter who was working on the house have a bathing suit and went in the pool at the same time. although there were other women and children there. The plaintiff also told her of going out riding with his man and when the witness told her she ought not to do these things she said there was no harm in it. Mrs. Byron also told her. witness said that she in- tended to leave her husband as soon as her government allotments for insurance started to come. The witness said she advised the wife to save the money or spend it for the chidrens needs.
 In rebuttal. testimony was given hv Mrs. Byron and several of the men with whom she was alleged to have had i'm proper relations, all denying the allega- tons.
 At the conclusion of the Byron case the suit of Bartholomew A. Moran, now of Hartford. formerly of this city against the city of Willimantic was started. MT. Moran alleges breach of contract on the part of the city in 1917. when he was amployed to construct sidewalks and re set curbs Mir Moran claims S273.SS sti!j due him from the city for sidewalk con- itruction and s13S.S0 for removing trees Incidental to laying walk. witch was not covered in the contract. He testified that while constructing walk on Chestnut street in July, 1917. he was told to put a bag of cement in the mixer by the city Inspector. Jeremiah Lyons. and when he lid not do so the latter told him to stoI work. Mir. Moran insists that all of the sidewalks were laid according to speci- iications, which called for one part ot cement. three of sand and five of grave for the base. and one part of cement and :wo of sand for the top dressing. The