Putnam patriot., 1928-03-29

money was stopped at the min Office
+ and that Il went into the store 70 pay
/ bills and that he was willing that this
should be done. lie aiso worked dur
+ ing spare time as carpenter
and gave this money 90 his
wife. They also kept boarders aud
his wife collected the board money.
After he got out Of jail the wit
mess said. he did not go back home
because he had heard his wife would
have him arrested again. He got q
boarding place and when his two
children came to him he hired a tene-
mcnt. He got job and worked two
or three weeks and then was drunk
for a week lie said that this was
last December and that he then and
there made up his mind to "cut it
cut and to "be a gentleman He
said that since that time he had no
desire 20 drink and stated that he
was willing to live with his wife
again.
Well Provided For
The daughter was called to the
stand. JUDGE Yeomans suggested that
the children should not be brought
into the ense unless absolutely neces-
sary. Attorney Back said he would
not ask any questions that would re-
fleet on the parents. He then asked
Nlia 0'Clair If the family had plenty
81 eat and wear and she replied that
they did.
The Justice az the peace Of Brook
lyn superintendent GrenGan af the
min iu which Q'Clair s. az present
working testified that he had work.
ed for Che company since October or
November end had lost hut enc day.
He said OfClAir WINS G faithful em-
ninNe
Charles Carver. boolkecHer teati-
fled that between September 1875
and September 1927, O'Nlair had
earned SI2s61 and that the money
had an gone 90 the campany's store
to upplv ON the femilV bills Other
witnesses testified chat 0'clair had
not drank since last December.
Attorney Bill made a short argu-
menf in which he said that a habit Of
eighteen years was not - be lHid
aside easily. That II had been shown
that the defendant was hahituHliy in.
temperate and that The wife 20 wa.
only sixteen years old, at the time 81
the marriage, was entitled te . sepa-
ration from such man ~ her nus-
band.
Attorney Back went into the tech
nieality Of the law as it relates &!
hahitnul intemneranec and stressed
the fact that the wife, knowing that
her husband was drinking man,
took her chances" when she mar
ried him. He also pointed out that
there had been no abuse alleged or
uroven and that the home was main
! tanned IN an orderly manner and that
. ali were we'll provided for. Judge
, Yeomans took the file but later hand
: Cd down a decision in which the plain
, tin was denied decree. The court
In It's decision, says in part;
Reasons For Denial
In this case the evidence indicates
that while the defendant has had
frequent spells Of drinking he ha'
never made any disturbance. Fol
about eighteen years the parties have
lived together without any apparent
complaint on the part Of the wlie
The boarders In the family testified
Il is a good place 70 board. Ih'
: only evil results that appear TO have
come from drinking Is oceasional
smells of unemployment The evi
! dence indicates that for the last yeal
tho PARTIES lived together he worked
at least part Of every week with three
Z executions. The wages all went for
, the support Of the family. The two
; older children are living by their owr
/ choice with The defendant rather thar
: with the plaintiff. The defendant has
: been strictly sober since December !
and expresses the intention Of con.
tinuinr to remain sober.
Under the circumstance ! do mol
! think II would be well to dissolve the
marriage relation. After the length
= Of time IL has continued II may vel
. he that Il viii be resumed.
The petition is denied.