Norwich bulletin., 1922-11-16
SUES FOR SUPPORT FROM HER HUSBAND TN LEDYARD

The tangled matrimonial affairs of Frank E. Green Of Ledyard and his wife, Elizabeth Westcott Green, of Norwich
 which had alceady been in the superior
 court on a suit for divorce which Mrs Green brought but lost on the grounds of
 intoierable cruelty, again reached the
 court for trial here Wednesday when
 Judge L. P Waldo Marvin heard the evil
 dence in Mrs. Greens suit for non-sup-
 port. ..
 The groom was bachelor of Ss when
 he married the plaintiff in this case, who
 had already been twice married and
 twice 8 widow. She was 54. Afr Green
 is said to be worth over $50 900 in cash
 and farm property, but for the purposes
 of this case the attorneys had agreed by stipulation that he should be considered worth $13,000. Attorney Roderick M. Douglass a%Deared for the plaintiff and Edmund W. Perkins for the defendant. After hearing the evidence and the argu- 1 ments, Judge Marvin reserved decision l late Wednesday afternoon.
 Mrs. Green, who was the first witness l testified that her married life lasted just l four weeks after the ceremony on April 24, 1920, by Rev. A. F. Purkiss in this city. The wedding. she said, followed a very insistent wooing on the part of |
 tisement for a housekeeper. When he
 found that she was Scotch he was great i ly pleased and suggested marriage at 1 once. She put this off. but he got a mar
 riage license without her knowledge and 1 as a final move to hurry the ceremony l promised to give her 5000 as soon as l they were married.
 1 Mrs. Green had been to the farmhouse 1 in Ledyard before she was married, she testified, and she also described the con l ditions when her husband took her there l after they were married. Their bed had | no sheets nor pillow cases she said, and her husband went to the barn, from which 1 he brought couple of horse blankets. I The stable odor was so strong that she could not stay in the room. Mrs. Green also described living conditions during the four weeks she was at the house, and I said the plaee was not fit for animals to live in. They lived mostly on rotten corned hsef, she said. He provided no I tea or coffee, allowed her one egg a day I1 and she was compelled to drink hot water \ out of a tin cup in lieu of coffee or tea j Her husband wanted her to help him in the field by riding the horse while he | plowed. On the night She left the house she had arranged to have two neighbors l by the name of Norcross secrete them :l selves near a wall where they could heaI Il what went on between herself and heI
 husband. It was night and she told him
 she was going to walk to NorTich, but Il he showed no interest and let her go. Mrs Norcross allowed her to Stay that nigh at the Norcross place and the next day !. she came to Norwich.
 I Dr. F. J. Harper told of the poor phy
 sical condition of Mrs. Green which ht said, arose from her experiences on tht
 farm. She was sick after she left there T Frank Chapman and Mes. Sarah A Moody testified to going with Mrs. Greer on one occasion in a taxi to the Greer house, where Mrs. Green was willing t t go back and live, but Mir. Green told he I he didn't want her there and that if shi I came there he would make it so uncom fortahle she couldn't stay.
 a For the defendant, James A. Stoddard
 Edward E. Lester and George W. Palme . testified that he did not make more tha, !, $200 over and above his living expense q from his farm.
 nj Mir, Green, the defendant, took tn - stand and denied much that his wife ha
 said about not providing good home fo if her. but admitted all he brought home 1 U the four weeks was 8 pound of DOT .l chops. He said that his wife had oougf . clothes on his credit, one of the item
 l Delng @ SZ4U TUT coAJ, ana had run
 bills with Norwich stores amounting | about $490, for which demand had bee z made upon him. He denied that he ha , told her she could not stay in the hous ,S1i at Ledyard.
 In his argument for MT Green, Attol
 ney Perkins said that Mrs. Green bt
 ilonged to what are called on Broadwa "gold -diggers,'' that this was all a none y making scheme, and that her appareE attempt to return to live with her hu. band was not made in good faith H 7 argued that she was not Justified Tn lea,
 1 ing him unless she left for reasons ths t would entitIe her to divorce under tt T efa