Wilmington daily commercial., 1873-01-30
FIRST EDITION..
300 p. M.
THE DIVORCE BUSINESS.

OoNEh, Jhnuhry z5
An examination of thirteen of the divorce
Acts pending in the Legislature and of the repre-
sentstions on which they are based, fdrnishe es
the summary given below. II wives and hus-
bands make the applications. Several are from
Wilmington. Several are upon grounds for
which the Courts can and ought to divorce 9TH
ers are upon very "thin," and altogether in
sufficient case. Here they are, as stated in the
applicants petitions, and other papers:
MCGEE vs.. MCGEE.
John W. Mcgee, of Indian River Sussex coun-
ty prays the honorable Legislature TO release
him from his marriage with Annie Mcgee. On
July 4th, 1870, she left him taking their two
children. He charges her with being extrava-
giant says che always tried to ruin him ran him
$500 in debt, and his business troubles being
precipitated his creditors sold him out. And
for these reason, John twill ever pray" &C.
JONES vs.. JONES.
Caroline and Rufus. Caroline, is of Whining
ton September 18th, fa4s, they were married,
at Ballston, Saratoga county N Y. Lived in
that county in Appoquinimink, Del and in
Wilmington, until 8 years ago, he abandoned
her they had four children; her father gave
Rufus $4,000, to carry on business but he didn't
support her on the contrary abused her in
February, 1869, she declares he "choked her,
dreadfully" and ''stuck his nails into her throat
until the blood flowed" Concerning these and
like statements, several persons make affidavit
supporting Mrs Jones' Therefore she desires
divorce.
wIELAND vs.. wIELAND.
Margaret Ann Bellew, OF Mill Greek, New
CASTLE Uo., married VIM Frederick Wieand, at
Chester, Pa ,on July 8, 1867, June 26th, 1869. he
abandoned her in Philadelphia. She has since
lived with her parents her husband has done
nothing to maintain her during their married
life, he struck her violently three times -
gave her no clothing altogether, but one hat and
one pair of shoes. Francis +. Jones, of Mill
Creek, who married sister Of the petitioner ON
the same day at Chester, supports her statement
as to abandonment, and 30, also, Sarah E. Bellew,
sister, who says William was "quite violent in
his manner"
ROBERTS VS.. ROBERTS.
William II. Roberts, of Dover, having married
Mary H. Pennington, Jan 16, 1855, now prays 9
divorce. He says she displayed an intense dis
like towards him was reckless of her duties
and obligations, and avoided his society thinks
she preferred the company OF other men.
letter is ION file with this petition Of Roberts,
from brother Of his wife, In New Jersey asking
that the case be carefully looked into, and stat
ing that Mrs. Roberts was obliged to leave her
home, by the petitioners unkindAess and ill
treatment.
sPoERL VS.. sPoERL.
Wife's petition Wilmington. "Shortly after y
John spoerl married Christine f., which was on
July 49, 1871, he began to abuse her-so she
AYERS he ran at her with q large screw-drver,
with violent threat , and abusive Language
from the latter part OF 1871 to October, 1872 he
" constantly beat her over the head and body
with his fist /" six months ago, he deserted
her he never gave her any clothes. Mrs. Spoerl
therefore prays divorce. An affidavit by William
Nader, supporting her petition, is on file with
IT,
PENNINGTON vs PENNINGTON.
Mary Pennington, of Brandywine Hundred Pc
ittlons. She was united to Isaac Pennington. in
July. 1849; she lived with him until April, 1870
ct Chester. He is 'habitual drunkard, )" she
supported herself and children her husband
lived on her earnings. Various affidavitB are on
file supporting petition, mostly from residents
Of Chester. L would be fair inquiry whet her
Chester is not Mrs. Pennington's real domicile
and this State only adopted as such, lately.
PEBBLES VS.. PEBBLES.
Hannah Pebbles, Of Wilmington, in a long pe-
ttion, asks divorce from Nelson Pebbles, to
whom sbe was married by Bishop Lee in Sep
tember, 1868. She AYERS that from the first week
OF their marriage he fused most cruel and harsh
language" toward her on the fourth day after
the wedding, Throwing off the manner and
meekness OF Quaker, which with much show of
piety, he bad represented himself to be, he APP
pesred in his true character, and frankly told
her he had married her to be hept in idleness"
She had to support him out of a small income
In June, 1863, his action toward her was disgust
ing and brutal, on particular occasion. This is
fully described in the petition but js not t to be
printed. In August Of the same year she left
him, and afterward gave him 1850 to stay away
from her. The affidavit Of Anna NJ. Stevenson,
and o petition signed by Jacob Jefferis Will
liam Conrad, Washington Mason, and others
support this petition.
IN -I.EF JONES vs.. JONES. 3fs
Anna Jones, of Wilmington, prays divorce
from Henry Jones. She was married in Noyem-
Der, 1868, and her husband deserted her in Feb
ruary, 1885, Nicholas. Jenney, her father, has
maintained her. Several depositions support
her petition. She has not heard from Henry
for over three years.
HICKMAN ys. HICKMAN.
The petition of Mary Hickman, of Whining
ton, and the affidavit Of her parents, William |
and Hannah A. Bareford, set forth that on April
6, 1871, being a little over IL years DID, she ran
away with Charles L. Hickman, to Chester, and |
was married to him her parents had remon-
strated against the match and it was kept se-
cret from them; they did not learn OF it for |
months he showed her from the first that he |
was q confirmed drunkard she believes he has |
committed adultery and further charges that |
he III a 'low thief !" she declares that he admit
ted to her that he stole mans pantaloons, at |
Bombay Hook while the owner was bathing.
Afidavits supporting these charges accompany |
the petition.
KERsEY vs. KERsEY.
Elizabeth G, Nickerson, of Wilmington, was |
married to John y. Kersey 1850 in Philadelphia |
was frequently intoxicated acted in an unfeel- |
ing and brutal manner in June 1865, had gun |
and threatened to shoot her in 1868, other cir
Of like nature; he threw lighted |
match into her bed; drove her out Of the house; |
has not supported her since. John 8. Kersey |
files a counter affidavit, and demonstrates |
against the divorce.
HANSON vs.. HANSON.
Lucy p. Hanson, of Sussex, married In De- |
cenIber, 1866, charges that her husband Peter |
Hanson "malicously abandoned" her, in Octo- |
Der, 1869, and 80 prays divorce. |
aOBLEE VI. GosLEE.
Elizabeth W. Goslee, citizeness OF Lewes |
and Rehoboth," petitions the honorable Legis- |
lature to sever the bonds tied in December 1858,
WEIGH connect her with Samuel Goslee. When |
she was married she had "a sufficiency of house
hold goods, and $465. She gave Samuel $3.50,
which he spent and wasted ON other women, |
one Of public character, and one a married wo- |
man. This prohigacy, she alleges, he further |
pursued, selling Elizabeths "last piece Of meat" |
to get money to continue it. Hence her petit |
ton.
HERITAGE vs. HERITAGE.
Sarah A. Heritage, OF Wilmington, AYERS that |
John II. Heritage, who married her in January,
1861, has rendered her life " unsafe, unhappy,
and Iniserable;" she charges that he is "a noto-
rious prohigAte and drunkard" Rebecca Uptide |
and !" Mary e. Mcdowell, or Mary E. White" |
furnish afidavits, which are on tile with the pe-
tition supporting the charge of adultery, speci-
hcally. An accompanying petition, praying the |
Legislature Ito relieve deserving woman from |
the prosecutions Of bad man, is signed by |
MnI, ltEa NJ mAt..a