Norwich bulletin., 1922-02-09

Judge Allyn L. Brown of the superior
court handed down his decision Wednes-
day denying the divorce which Mrs. Ka-
tie Allen Purcell of Colchester wanted
from hers husband. William H. Purcell Of
Salem. Mr.. Purcell opposed the granting
of the divorce and the case was tried
recently in Norwich before Judge Brown
as contested case.
Memorandum of Decision.
The following is Judge Browns memo
randum OF decision In the case:
The plaintiff by her complaint seeks
divorce upon two grounds 10 habitual
interperance OF the defendant for more
than one year prior to Sept: %, 1921,
the date of the writ and complaint, and
(2) intolerable cruelty from thS date
Of the parties marriage, June is. 1872
to said Sept. o. 1921. No sufficient ev-
idence was INTRODUCED to prove hibit-
usl intemperance and all claim to q
decree upon that ground was expressly
abandoned, by the plaintiffs counsel in
argument. Has the plaintiff by fair
preponderance of evidence proved the de-
PENDANT guilty Of intolerable cruelty as
alleged?
As is usual In this sort Of case. the
strongest statement of the. defendants
alleged cruelty comes from the plaintiff
herself Briefly all her. charges against
the defendant on this score are included
in the following: "a A threat to strike
her with "a chair and pushing her out
the door sometime in1912. CD threaten
ing her by shaking the butt of a horse
whip at her at the fair grounds in 1920,
ca pressing a revolver te<her temple
and threatening to- shoot her in Janu-
airy, 1921. "a asking his brother for
his revolver for the expressed purpose
;v,t, To har In
| August, 1921: go holding her by the
| neck and threatening to cut her throat
with his pocket knife in Sept, 1921,
and (6)s certain congratulations concern
ing his throwing chairs about, being
| surly, refusing to speak at times up
| on various occasions since their mar
riage.
| All of these charges are positively de-
MED by the defendant. The plaintiff very
| frankly ard positively stated on the
| witness stand her desire for a divorce
The defendant with equal clearness tes-
| tiled that he wants his wife, and the
| evidence shows that since her first de-
parture from his In 1912 his role has
| even down to within two weeks Of this
trial. He states that he loves her anf
that he loves their five yead old daugh
ter. Under such circumstances. zorro:
boration of the plaintiffs charges seems
particularly important.
The only witness through whom suef
direct evidence of Confederation is OF
fered are Mrs Reed. the plaintiffs sis
ter, ]. D. Clifford and r A. Day. hel
| brother-in-Iaw Mrs Reeds testimon.
is confined to the incident Of the de
PENDANTS threat with a chair and tn
pushing of the plaintiff out of the doc
in 1912, while the testimony of tn
other two is confined to threatening
language OF the defendant. unaccom
panied by any overt act on his part to
ward the plaintiff. Testimony of an.
third person that he or she either say
the defendant actually use violence upol
the plaintiff or any indications of sue
treatment In the form of marks or bruis
&c unon her person is not in the cast
The plaintiffs testimony by Hsef o
facts amounting to intolerable cruelty !
not convincing. There Is no evidenc
that can fairly be characterized a
corrohorative of the PRINCIPAL acts 0
cruelty upon which she relies. She ha
failed to prove her case.
have no doubt upon the evidene
that the defendant frequently failed t
keep his temper properly under contro
that he at times INDUCED In surly an
boorish tactics to the annoyance of hi
wife. that. more than once he perhop
used fiamboyant. threatening languag
toward her which he never intended t
carry out as she at the time kned, an
that since the sale of his farm in tn
spring of 1921 he has at times drank to
much hard cider. or other intoxican
The sum total of his shortcomings how