The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-02-10
ClaytOn's Suit
 Has Been Ended
(Continued from Page I.)

|o~ "
 dence had been introduced to have the jury consider the case against John R. Clayton, but had no objec- ton to the granting of the motion as affecting Mrs Annie Clayton.
 Judge Peasley said he had not heard any facts binding the de- fendants to paragraph three of the complaint and granted the mo- ton.
 Attorney Klein, son-in-law of the defendants, read paragraph three of the complaint which said the defendants by their arts, blandish- ments, seductions, allenated the love and affection of the plaintiffs husband and wilfully and ma liciously destroyed the peace and happiness of the plaintiffs home." Attorney Klein pointed out that there was not one single fact proved to substantiate the claims made in that paragraph of the complaint.
 The jury, which had been ex- cused during the arguments on the directed verdict, was brought in and Judge Peasley told them that there had been no evidence in- troduced to justify the members bringing in a verdict for the plaintiff. He informed them he had granted a motion for a di- rected verdict and instructed the panel to retire and bring in a ver- dict in favor of the defendants. The jury returned few minutes later and reported through its foreman, Fred c. Curtis, that 1t had carried out the courts instructions.
 The plaintiffs case was struck a staggering blow and wobbled along all day yesterday when Judge Peasley denied plaintiffs counsel's motion to amend the complaint so that it would read that the acts of the defendants started back in 1916. The plain tiff took the stand and started to tell of certain conversations she held with John k. Clayton as far back as 1916. Attorney Klein ob- jected on the grounds that the complaint said the acts occurred during 1930 and that the evidence should be confined to 1930 only. Judge Peaslqy granted the motion. Davis X Davis attempted to have the case continued so that he could make an amendment. When <AteOihSJ AhtOAh abNhi ODJCStCd, Judge Peasley denied the motion.
 Several times, the senior Davis stated there was no use in proceed ing with the case unless he could bring in evidence dating back to 1916.
 Mrs Clayton, the plaintiff, in her testimony admitted on cross exam ination, that she had over 100 letters and telegrams arranged in chronological order and numbered, which she received from her hus- band. She explained she expected a suit would be brought. She did not answer Attorney Klein's ques- ton, Are you after money?"
 Her husband, Walter c. Clay ton was called by he senior Da- wis to the stand, as surprise witness.
 He turned out to be anything but 0 plaintiff witness and supplied much humor with his whimsical replies. One of the questions he was asked was, Do you have kindly feeling toward, your wife?" He answered, 70, very!" He said he always held kindly feeling toward her and does yet. He said he left his wife because she gave nm HIS WaIklHb papers.
 One of the letters shown him by Attorney Davis he identified as having been written by him. Asked why he started the miss ,. Dear Elizabeth" the witness said there would have to be a little explana- tion. You see," he said, When everything was going along al- right, I used to address her as Dear Wifey,' and she used to re- ply, Dear Hubby She started to address me as Dear Walter,' 50 l changed to Dear Elizabeth" John R. Clayton denied he ever used any influence upon his son to ,, leave his wife. He said he never would attempt to bring a differ ence between any married couple. He testified that Walter was al- ways welcome to their home in Waterbury whenever he was stop ping here. He emphatically denied he discussed Walters separation from his New York wife.
 It is considered unlikely that an appeal will be taken in the case.