.p-VAre SemBefore adjourning codnv Saturday, Jmlge Watflt i ight decree* of divorce, all in case* In which th# had been heard at the beginning the toirn. In seevn of the cuifw^rtion was the charge, the I vine cruelty. Those chargingsMTtion were: - ■- y-V^vSophia Hussong vs. Royal iSil9^tpxC\sons. The wife Is awarded Ibftfobv of the child, but the (Athlf lMSKe;?the right to take it home two days: g-b£ - M week. Mussong must [ay $6 a wook.-;-.:5.vLuther 1. Roger* vs. Nolle ®*o ;y Iieg« r*. In this ca*e the Wife Ul^ '' j given the cjiild and the husbands r_* t must net interfere. ^ v| Sant H. Bwtckward v*. Blanch*^ ? .Mite Swiekward. The husband It awarded the custody of the youngHelen Klue Williams vs. William* l*r« st«*n William-.Katherine Ik Teninty vs. Charles It Tenintv. The two children art j l?;fcd in the custody of the Wife. —; Fred Mason vs. Bertha Bee Ma*.son.John Henry Stremme v*. Kllzaboth Strenune.lt; 'melt v i* the «barge sustained ia*he case of Rose Hr+taler vs. WalterIfA lbTtzler. and Mrs. HerUSer I* 1* i.allowed t«» resume her maiden nani# . ^of Spdk«*r. — *