The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-03-06
NAUGHTY.
A BRIEF OUTLINE Or ALL THE
DIVORCE CASES IN WHICH
WHITE FOLKS AXE
PARTIES.
What Old Sweethearts Have to Say
About Their Old Lovers After
the Love Has Cooled.

In Icu6IlCh OlIluC VI. LLiLhb HAAAuS
petitioner states he has lived In this
: county over five years. He states IN his
petition that he and Emma were
united in the holy bonds of matri-
mony the 9th day of August, 1873, in
this county. He further tells the
court that the defendant has been
} guilty of excesses, cruel treatment
and outrages toward himself of such
a nature as to render their living to-
Qether insupportable He tells in all
the legal phraseology OF court petit
tion how She struck him on the head
and neck " it'll large piece of wood.
That one time he came home from
Austin and she called him hard names,
Eliminating that he was an "old
devil" "old scoundrel," etc. and after
talking to him in this manner, tried
to strike him and forced him to flee to
the garden to keep out of her way.
SHE GOES TO HOUSTON.
In Charles Miller VS.. Augusta Mil
Ter, the plaintiff tells all he knows that
is bad about his wife, in very short
petition. He AYERS that they were
married on the oath day of Au-
gust 1883, in the state of Texas, 1t
will be- noticed their connubial
experience has been very short. but
the petition shortens it deal more.
1t says: "That heretofore, to-wit, on
or about the goth Of November, 1883.
she, the said Augusta Millel, without
any cause whatever, or provocatlon
known to the petitioner, did leave and
abandon petitioner" More is stated
that will not do for public print,
which, if true, makes the plaintiff a
very much abused man. 1t is fair to
surmise that there is another side to
the case, and when the wife returns
from Houston to answer she may put
things in another light.
DEEP IN THE MIRE.
Emma Myers vs.. Fred. A. Myers is
another case in which the fair plain
tiff, who is said to be young and pref
ty, alleges that she is a resident of this
city and thiA she does not know the res.
idence of her husband; that on or about
the 7th day of May, 1869, she and the de-
PENDANT were married in the city OF
Memphis, in the state of Tennessee,
and continued to live with him as his
wife until about the middle of De-
cember, 1880. She says she came to
this state in January, 1882. She also says
that there are four children as the |
fruits Of said union; ma ned Freddie |
o., IA years old; Mary, II years of age;
Marian, 10 years old, and Hattie, aged |
five. While she treated him as faith |
tul wife should treat a husband, !
he treated her harshly for |
four years previous to leaving him.
That this conduct increased until she |
was compelled to separate from him.
That at one time, after using oDpro-
brious language, he drew a loaded re-
volver to shoot her, and at another
time assaulted her with walking |
cana and to protect her life she was /
obliged to flee, etc,
ABAD CASE.
Francis Lofts VS.. Ida Lofts, pre-
sents sad tale The plaintiff lives
here. This loving couple were mar
ried the 9th day of January, 1888 and
lived together until the 18th day of |
October, 1883, during which time the
petitioner says he made ample proviS-
ions for her support and treated her
with uniform kindness. On the 18th |
day of October, 1883, the defendant,
without any just cause, abandon
ed the home of the petitioner |
and went to the city of Houston.
That on the 1st day of December,
1889, the defendant proved inconStant |
to him and accepted the attentions of
Geo. Butler. That on the Sd day CT
December, 1883, she became drunk
and acted in very unpleasant man
ner. He furthermore states that since
she went to Houston she has been in
the habit Of getting drunk.
A PECULIAR CASE.
Fannie G. Lane VS.. Nat 2. Lane, is a |
case of some interest. The marriage |
is alleged on the 9th day of December,
1888 She says that at the time of |
said marriage the defendant was of |
unsound mind to such an extent that |
the marriage contract is void. 1t is
alleged this condition of mind makes |
the contract of no effect. The plant
if says at the time of said marriage
she did not know of this condition of
mind; that she was widow;
was sick in bed: that the defend
ant proposed marriage and she
accepted the offer and was mar
said while she was sick in bed. This
allegation is followed by statement
of cruel and outrageous treatment
which continued until the 9Th day
of Feb, A. D, 1884, when he was taken
TO the asylum.
BAD MAN.
Mary Jones VS.. James j. Jones is a
case in which it is alleged the parties
were married in Illinois, Sept. 10, 1876,
and they lived together until July 8.
1883. She says she was a dutiful, ODE
dent and faithful wife, but that the
defendant disregarding his marriage
obligation to cherish, love and protect
plaintiff, did on or about the 18th day |
of May, 1888, and often thereafter,
abuse and illtreat her and was guilty |
of such excuses, cruel treatment and
outrageS towards her as to render |
their living together insupportable.
"And many other things too tedious
to mention that on or about the 9th |
day of June, 1883, said defendant as
saulted her with large butcher knife
and she fled to save her life that a
few days before that time he threw |
chair at her and borke the chair.
THREE MIRE.
Belle Nugent VS.. p. NJ. Nugent, is
singular case. The parties were mar
ried November 4, 1874, in this county. |
1t is avered that on the 4th day of |
May, 1874, he left her with the inten- |
ton of abandonment, and did so |
abandon her.
Henry F. Woods VS.. Nancy Woods, |
is case wherein the marriage is said |
to have occurred September Is, 1880,
and the wife is said to have abandoned
the husband in September, 1882, for
oneJ. j. Nixon.
Louise Kinney VS.. III. B. Kinney, is
another interesting case The parties
were married July Is, 1882. The
plaintiff tells the court she has been
loving, obedient and personally labor
ing wife. The defendant has failed to
support her, and has lived on means
earned by her. That he has fallen
into habits of idleneSs and drunken
ness, and does no business though
capable.
A DUET.
John A. J. Norbert vs.. Francis I.
Dustin Norbert, discloses the allega-
tions that the parties were married
March 10, 1882. That the defendant
cruelty treated the plaintiff using bad
language, etc
| Mamie H. March VS.. AlonZo II.
March, contains a long petition in
which it is alleged the parties were
married January 1, 1882, in Tennessee.
Before the marriage the defendant
was sober man, but after the mar