Richland Co., Ohio

 

Misc. Divorce Records, 1901


 

To submit a record or link, please contact Amy

 
 
 

In probate court Monday, Judge Brinkerhoff granted Fannie (Hedges) BEATTY a divorce from Harry W. BEATTY.  The grounds alleged for action was bigamy.  [The Mansfield News, 14 October 1901, Vol. 17, No. 191]

Cecelia BISSELL, by her attorneys, has filed suit in common pleas court against William BISSELL for divorce.  The parties were married according to the petition, more than two years ago.  There were no children born of the marriage.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has disregarded his duties to the plaintiff in this, towit:  1st. -- At divers times and especially on or about June 18, 1899, he assaulted the plaintiff, choking and beating her and at other time he has assaulted her so that she is in constant fear of her husband.  2nd. -- Her husband never contributed anything to her support.  3rd. -- Her husband is guilty of habitual drunkenness.  4th. -- On April 19 1900, without any fault on plaintiff's part her husband abandoned plaintiff and ever since refuses to live with her or contribute to her support.  The plaintiff prays for a divorce from said defendant and for such other relief as is proper and equity demands.  [The Mansfield News, 21 September 1901, Vol. 17, No. 172]

William B. CLINKER, by his attorneys, Laser & Huston, has begun suit in probate court against Mary L. CLINKER, for divorce.  The plaintiff alleges that he has been a resident of Richland county for more than a year past.  That he was married to the defendant on Aug. 26, 1890, and that there were born of such marriage three children:  Francis Earl, deceased;  Edith Marie, aged 8 and Hazel Margarite, age 6.  The plaintiff says that the defendant has been guilty of gross neglect of duty toward plaintiff in this, that she refuses to live with plaintiff, that defendant left plaintiff's home and refuses to return, although requested so to do by plaintiff.  Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that he may be divorced from defendant and for such other and further relief as is proper.  [The Mansfield News, 03 October 1901, Vol. 17, No. 182]

Eber C. DECOU, by his attorneys, Donnell & Marriott, has begun suit in probate court against Margaret A. DECOU for divorce.  The parties were married on April 10, 1867.  There are no children.  The plaintiff alleges that his wife has been willfully absent from him for a period of more than three years last past without provocation on plaintiff's part.  Wherefore the plaintiff asks that he may be divorced from the defendant.  [The Mansfield News, 29 October 1901, Vol. 17, No. 204]

Jennie L. DICKSON, by her attorney W.W. Scott, has brought suit in probate court against George G. DICKSON for divorce, alimony and injunction.  The parties were married Dec. 7, 1890, in Worthington township, Richland county, Ohio.  There were three children, viz.:  Morris Dickson aged 8 years, Chester Dickson aged 5 years and Gaylord Dickson aged 2 years.  The plaintiff alleges that since the marriage the defendant has been guilty of extreme cruelty towards this plaintiff in this to-wit:  That at various times and more particularly on the dates July ---, 1897, Aug. 10, 1899, Nov. 18, 1900 and Feb. 3, 1901, the defendant used profane, abusive and threatening language toward the plaintiff and also calling her vile names, therefore causing the plaintiff great mental suffering and fear.  That on June 1, 1898, the defendant purchased and became the proprietor of a certain property known as the Hotel Morris, at Bellville, and together with the plaintiff conducted the same for about two years thereafter.  That during the greater portion of the last above stated time said defendant willfully neglected and refused to employ sufficient help to properly conduct said hotel and by reason of said willful negligence and refusal and on account of threats and abuse of the defendant toward the plaintiff, she was compelled to do most of the work, thereby overtaxing her strength and greatly injuring her health.  The plaintiff further says that at various times during the past four years, the defendant forbid the plaintiff and children to visit her parents and relatives.  The plaintiff further avers that the defendant has household goods and wearing apparel which belongs to the plaintiff in his possession;  also tat he owns considerable personal property;  also that he is the owner of a ten-acre fruit farm located just outside of the city of Mansfield, Ohio.  Also the undivided interest in lots and other real estate located in Mansfield, the value and interest not fully known to this plaintiff.  The plaintiff further says that the defendant is a person of vicious and vulgar habits and is wholly unfit to be intrusted with the care and custody of children;  that their children are now with the plaintiff and under her care.  The plaintiff has good reasons to belive and does believe and therefore avers the fact and that whatever property the defendant now possesses will forthwith upon the commencement of this action, be encumbered or disposed of by the defendant so as to defeat the plaintiff from obtaining alimony thereof and that the defendant will attempt to get possession of their children.  Wherefore the plaintiff prays that during the pendency of this suit the defendant be enjoined from in any way interfering with the plaintiff in the custody and control of the children and from disposing of any of the property or encumbering it.  That on the final hearing of the case she may be divorced, restored to her maiden name, that she may be decreed reasonable alimony and the custody of the children.  [The Mansfield News, 26 December 1901, Vol. 17, No. 252]

Mary Lydia EARICK, by her attorneys, Laser & Huston, has begun divorce proceedings in probate court against Levi EARICK.  The parties were married Dec. 8, 1873.  There are three minor children as the result of the marriage as follows:  Ernie Earick, aged 17;  Orie Earick, aged 19 years;  Lucy Earick, aged 6 years.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has been guilty of extreme cruelty in this to-wit:  That on Sept. 22, 1901, he maliciously and without provocation stuck and kicked the plaintiff and otherwise injured her.  That on many occasions prior thereto defendant has struck, kicked and choked plaintiff and threatened to kill plaintiff.  It is also alleged that the defendant is possessed of nine acres of real estate situated in the township of Jackson, county of Richland, state of Ohio.  The defendant also owns personal property consisting of one horse, one cow and a large amount of money which the defendant conceals from this plaintiff.  The plaintiff further says that defendant threatens to and will unless restrained by the order of the court, continue to kick, strike, wound and do the plaintiff bodily injury and that she is afraid of the safety of her life.  Wherefore plaintiff prays that she may be allowed temporary alimony during the pendency of this suit and that upon final hearing she may be allowed such alimony is reasonable and just;  that she be decreed the custody of her minor children and that she be granted a divorce from said defendant and for such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.  [The Mansfield News, 24 September 1901, Vol. 17, No. 174.]

Amelia EBERTS, by her attorneys, Donnell & Marriott, has begun suit in probate court against Joseph EBERTS for divorce.  The parties were married Aug. 3, 1893.  There was born of the marriage three children, Charles (7 years), Hazel (3 years) and Anna (1 year).  The plaintiff alleges that her husband has been guilty of extreme cruelty toward her by striking her and calling her harsh and bitter names and by falsely accusing her of unchastity and immoral conduct.  The defendant is possessed of personal property consisting of stock and farming utensils in the value of $1000 and more and he threatens to sell and dispose of the same thereby putting it beyond the reach of the plaintiff.   Wherefore the plaintiff asks that the defendant be enjoined from selling or disposing of said property until the final hearing of this cause, that she be divorced from the defendant and also be decreed reasonable alimony together with the custody of their children.  [The Mansfield News, 04 September 1901, Vol. 17, No. 157.]

Maggie FRENCH, by her attorneys, Donnell & Marriott, has begun suit in probate court against Jay G. FRENCH for divorce.  The parties were married at Tribes Hill, N.Y., Aug. 17, 1884.  There are no children.  The plaintiff alleges that on or about Sept. 15, 1901, and many other times prior thereto the defendant has been guilty of extreme cruelty towards this plaintiff by calling her harsh and bitter names and by using personal violence toward her.  Wherefore the plaintiff asks that she may be divorced from the defendant;  also that she may be restored to her maiden name which was Maggie ARGERSINGER and for such other relief as in equity she is entitled to.  [The Mansfield News, 24 October 1901, Vol. 17, No. 200]

Probably the shortest divorce case ever seen in Richland county courts was filed in probate court this orning by Donnell & Marriott, attorneys for the plaintiff.  The case is styled David H. FUNK vs. Gail H. FUNK.  The petition covers five typewritten lines.  The plaintiff alleges that he has been a resident of Richland county for more than a year.  That the parties to the suit were married Oct. 20, 1898.  That the defendant wife has been wilfully absent from the plaintiff for more than three years last past without cause.  [The Mansfield News, 20 November 1901, Vol. 17, No. 223]

Flora B. GOCKLEY, by her attorneys, Bowers & Black, has begun suit in probate court against John W. GOCKLEY for divorce.  The plaintiff alleges that she is a bonafide resident of Richland county and has been for more than a year.  The parties were married April 2, 1897, and the wife alleges that her husband has been wilfully absent from her for more than three years past.  No children born of the marriage.  Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that the marriage contract heretofore existing between her and defendant may be dissolved and that she may be restored to her former name of Flora B. IRWIN and such further relief as is proper.  [The Mansfield News, 09 October 1901, Vol. 17, No. 187]

Carrie Ellen HALTERMAN, by her attorney, Fred S. Marquis, has begun suit in probate court against  Eugene D. HALTERMAN for divorce.  The parties were married Jan. 2, 1894.  There are no children born of this marriage.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has been guilty of gross neglect of duty for more than three years last past.  That on or about Nov. 1, 1898, the defendant abandoned the plaintiff without the common necessaries of life;  that since that time plaintiff has been compelled to depend upon the charity of friends and upon her own exertions for a livelihood.  Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that she may be divorced from the defendant, that she may be restored to her maiden name, Carrie Ellen REED, and for such other relief as the court may deem is proper in the case.  [The Mansfield News, 18 November 1901, Vol. 17, No. 221]

Laura HAZLETT, by her attorney, Andrew Stevenson, has filed suit in probate court against Jacob HAZLETT for divorce.  The parties were married April 10, 1895.  There are three children -- Peary aged 6, Hazel aged 4 and Blanch aged 2.  The plaintiff alleges that she has been a faithful wife since the marriage, but that the defendant has been guilty of habitual drunkenness for three years prior to April, 1899.  That since April, 1899, he has been guilty of gross neglect of duty in that during all of the time he has refused and neglected to provide anything for the plaintiff or her children's support and she has been compelled to support herself by her own exertions and by the aid of her relatives.  Wherefore the plaintiff prays that she may be divorced, have the care and control of her children, be restored to her maiden name of Laura SIMS and for all other proper relief.  [The Mansfield News, 20 November 1901, Vol. 17, No. 223]

Edith May ISALY, by her attorney, Oliver L. Cunningham, has begun suit in probate court against Edwin A. ISALY for divorce.  The parties were married at Mansfield, O., Feb. 23, 1898.  There was one child born of the marriage, Earl LeRoy Isaly, now deceased.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has, in disregard of his marital duties, for more than three years last past, been willfully absent from the plaintiff and has wholly failed to contribute to her support.  Wherefore plaintiff prays that she may be divorced from the defendant  and may be restored to her maiden name of Edith May SIMMONS and such other relief as the court may deem proper.  [The Mansfield News, 31 December 1901, Vol. 17, No. 256]

In probate court R.S. LOWE, by his attorneys Skiles & Skiles and T.J. Green, has filed suit for divorce against Susan LOWE.  The parties have been permanent residents of the state of Ohio for twenty years past.  The plaintiff alleges that on January 6, 1878, at West Middletown, Washington county, Pa., he was married to the defendant to which marriage the following named children were born:  Chester Lowe, aged 19 years;  Mary Lowe, aged 17 years;  Lizzie Lowe, aged 15 years.  The plaintiff further says that the said defendant has been wilfully absent from the plaintiff for more than three years last past and wholly disregarded all marital duties.  Wherefore the plaintiff prays judgment, divorcing the said plaintiff and defendant and dissolving the marriage, for the custody of the minor children and for such further relief as he may be entitled to.  [The Mansfield News, 26 November 1901, Vol. 17, No. 228]

In the case of Mrs. Nora MAGUIRE vs. Joseph MAGUIRE, in probate court, the plaintiff has been granted a divorce and custody of the child.  [The Mansfield News, 29 October 1901, Vol. 17, No. 204]

Mary L. MOWREY, by her attorneys, R. R. McCrory, has begun suit in probate court against Curtis C. MOWREY for divorce.  Leonard L. Parry and the Richland Savings Bank are also made defendants in the case.  The parties were married in Holmes county, Ohio, Oct. 20, 1892.  There is one child, Frank R. Mowrey.  Plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Curtis C. Mowrey, has been guilty of habitual drunkenness for three years past;  that the defendant has also for more than two years failed and wilfully neglected to provide the plaintiff and family with the common necessaries of life so that plaintiff has been compelled to live upon the income from her own labor and the board paid by her children by a former marriage, because of his idleness, profigacy and dissipation;  that the defendant was on Oct. 13, 1901, guilty of extreme cruelty toward this plaintiff in this that he threatened to murder plaintiff, raised his arm with clenched fist and threatened to strike her.  By his threats and acts he drove her out of their home and she was compelled to flee to a neighbor's, that he followed her, cursed her and the neighbor and threatened her and them with dire punishment and that he has been guilty of extreme cruelty on divers occasions prior to this time towards plaintiff, threatening and raising his arm to strike her and cause her to flee from her home.  The plaintiff also says that there is due and owing plaintiff and Curtis C. Mowry from Leonard L. Perry, the second defendant, about one hundred dollars.  Said defendant, Curtis C. Mowrey, is trying to secure possession of said money so as to defeat plaintiff from obtaining alimony.  Wherefore the plaintiff asks alimony for her sustenance and that of the child and also her expenses during the pending of this suit, including attorney's fees, and that upon the final hearing she may be granted a divorce, that she be decreed reasonable alimony and have the custody of the child, and that the defendants, Curtis C. Mowrey and Leonard L. Parry and the Richland Savings Bank be enjoined from disposing of the said property and money in the meantime and that defendant, Leonard L. Parry, be ordered to pay into court all the money he has owing Curtis C. Mowery and plaintiff subject to the order of the court and that Curtis C. Mowrey be enjoined from interfering with the plaintiff in the custody of said child and of the household goods in petitioner's possession until the final hearing thereof and for such other relief as is proper.  Judge Brinkerhoff allowed the temporary injunction.  [The Mansfield News, 14 October 1901, Vol. 17, No. 191]  Answer and Cross Petition:  An answer and cross-petition somewhat sensational has been filed in probate court in the case of Mary L. Mowrey vs. Curtis C. Mowrey, Leonard L. Perry and The Richland Savings Bank.  The defendant in his answer denies that he has been guilty of habitual drunkenness;  also he denies that he has failed to provide for his wife or that he threatened to assault her.  He also denies that he was guilty of extreme cruelty, that he chased her out of the house, etc.  By way of cross-petition the defendant says that his wife has been guilty of gross neglect to prepare his meals on very many occasions, although he was working hard all the time at hard labor.  He says that the plaintiff abandoned the defendant on various occasions and at different times quarreled with him.  He also charges that she was guilty of extreme cruelty;  that she assaulted him with a knife and threatened to kill him and did try to kill the defendant with the knife.  Wherefore the defendant asks divorce from his wife, custody of his child, Frank B. Mowrey.  [The Mansfield News, 16 October 1901, Vol. 17, No. 193]   The divorce case of Mary L. MOWREY vs. Curtis L. MOWERY was tried before Judge Brinkerhoff in probate court today.  The wife was given a decree of divorce, and the custody of the child, aged 7 years.  [The Mansfield News, 09 December 1901, Vol. 17, No. 238]

The divorce case of Eliza A. NORRIS vs. Amos D. NORRIS is on trial before Judge Brinkerhoff in probate court today.  The parties reside in Worthington township.  Some of the allegations of the wife's petition are rather unusual, among which is one to the effect that Norris claims to be a wizard and to have extraordinary power to make people sick.  About seventy-five witnesses have been summoned to testify in the case and it will probably last two days.  Bowers & Black and Samuel Marriott are the attorneys for the plaintiff, and H.T. Manner and C.E. McBride are counsel for the defendant.  [The Mansfield News, 18 November 1901, Vol. 17, No. 221]

Rosa RUTAN, by her attorneys, Maguire & Galbraith, has begun suit in common please court against Samuel L. RUTAN.  The first mentioned defendant and husband of the plaintiff made an assignment a few days ago in probate court.  The plaintiff in this case asks divorce and alimony.  The parties were married June 27, 1893.  Three children were born of the marriage:  Lester aged 7 years on Feb. 26, 1901;  Carl aged 5 years on Jan. 3, 1901;  Lloyd aged 10 months on Nov. 28, 1901.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, her husband, has been guilty of habitual drunkenness for over three years past.  Also that he is guilty of extreme cruelty to the plaintiff in that in the year 1895 at Cleveland, Ohio, the defendant struck the plaintiff and choked her and made threats to do her bodily harm and by reason thereof and fear of him the plaintiff was compelled to leave him and live separate and apart from him and that afterwards upon his promise to treat her well at his request, she returned to him;  but in disregard of his promise he has many times abused plaintiff, swore at and threatened her with bodily harm and on or about May 25, 1898, said defendant violently struck her and otherwise maltreated her.  On Oct., 1899, he again used personal violence toward her, choked her and threatened to strike her with a chair and he constantly threatened her with personal violence to such an extent that she is put in fear of him.  The defendant, Samuel L. RUTAN, is guilty of gross neglect of duty in that for several months previous to Feb., 1900, he failed and refused to provide the common necessities of life for plaintiff and their children, save in a small degree and that she was then compelled to support herself and children to a large degree by her own exertions and that by reason thereof and of her delicate condition of health she was compelled to and did file a petition in this court for alimony and upon hearing a monthly allowance was made to her out of her husband's wages, but the defendant in disregard for the order several times refused to make the payments, although he had regular employment and was able to do so.  The defendant failed to make these payments for over three months.  On Nov. 25, 1901, the defendant, Samuel L. RUTAN, made an assignment of his property in probate court to George W. Bricker.  The plaintiff alleges that this pretended assignment was made for the purpose of defrauding her out of her alimony.  The plaintiff asks that she may be granted a divorce, the custody of the children, together with reasonable alimony.  The plaintiff also asks the assignee, George W. Bricker, be enjoined from disposing of the real estate.  Judge Campbell granted a temporary restraining order against both RUTAN and Bricker to say the sale of the property pending inquiry into the matter.  [The Mansfield News, 02 December 1901, Vol. 17, No. 232]

James H. SEYMOUR, by his attorneys Donnell & Marriott, has begun suit in probate court against Eliza H. SEYMOUR for divorce.  The plaintiff alleges that he has been a resident of Richland county for more than a year.  The parties were married Sept. 15, 1894.  Further that on or about Aug. 14, 1898, the defendant without cause or excuse deserted the plaintiff and has ever since been willfully absent from him.  Said defendant has been guilty of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty for more than three years last past by refusing to perform her duties and reside with the plaintiff.  Wherefore the plaintiff asks that he be divorced from the defendant.  [The Mansfield News, 10 December 1901, Vol. 17, No. 239]

Mary E. SPOHN, by her attorney, Charles F. Spayde, has begun suit in common pleas court against John SPOHN.  The plaintiff alleges that she was married on Dec. 30, 1900 at Lima, and that there are no children.  She complains that her husband has been guilty of gross neglect of duty.  On Sept. 24, 1901, the defendant arranged for her to visit Lima.  She had no sufficient money on which to return home and the defendant declined to furnish it.  She secured the funds with which to return home from friends and found the house deserted.  She claims her husband is a stone mason and earns $2.50 per day.  She asks that she be given alimony and that her husband be enjoined from disposing of the household goods.  [The Mansfield News, 08 December 1901, Vol. 17, No. 237]  Judge Wolfe this morning heard an application for alimony in the case of Spohn vs. Spohn.  The judge allowed to Mrs. Spohn $30 alimony pending the suit.  [The Mansfield News, 11 December 1901, Vol. 17, No. 240]

In probate court today, Judge Brinkerhoff, granted to Elverna STRAUB on the grounds of willful absence.  She was restored to her maiden name, Elverna RIGGLE.  Harry Manner was the attorney for the plaintiff.  [The Mansfield News, 18 November 1901, Vol. 17, No. 221]

In probate court, Judge Brinkerhoff has granted Callie THOMAS a divorce from Earnest THOMAS.  The judge also restored the plaintiff to her maiden name, Miss Callie WINFIELD.  [The Mansfield News, 24 October 1901, Vol. 17, No. 200]



<< Back to Divorce Records Index

<< Back to the Richland Co., Ohio Index