MORE THAN THE USUAL NUM. BEE OF DIVORCE PLEAS HEARD IN COURT, ALIMONYASKED BY SOME PLAINTIFFS% i.A food portion of Monday'* an* •ion of superior court was . consumed in the trial of divorce case*, and •everal couples who heretofore Had worked in double harness werei • • , • •# * # ( ' • . »granted, the single , blessedness sought. The calendar of divorce | pleas was an unusually heavy one for Butts county, so much so that it was a subject of comment in court circles.In one or two instances alimony was sought in connection with the divorce plea.Among the cases heard were the following:Mrs. Madge Hazel Weaver vs Oscar Weaver, Jr., first decree.Mrs. Laura Allen Cagle vs Joseph Jackson Cagle, divorce.Mrs. Bernice Williams Hutto vs J. Will Hutto, verdice for divorce.Mrs. Willie Pay O’Kelley James vs George James, first decree.. 'i • .Mrs. lmogene Maddox ,Mimms vs% v .Dorsey Mimms, first decree.Mrs. Mary Smith Allen, vs Michael Allen, verdict for divorce. 1Mrs. Mary Bowden vs D. M. Bow-r♦ •den, first decree'.. R. M. Brown vs Mrs. Aline Brown,» . r *1 J m'first decree.Mrs. Eloise Standard vs Ernest Standard, verdict for divorce.Mish McMichael vs Maud H. Me-* *• * • .1 • •Michael, first decree.