The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-02-09
GRIEVANCES AIRED In COURT
Charges and Counter-Charges of a Cou-
pie Seeking Their Second Divorce.
Trial Of Case That Has Been in the Courts
Nearly q Quarter Of a Century Little
Bits of Local Litigation.

The divorce suit of Mary A. Dittemors against
John w. Dittemors will be called for trial be-
fore Judge Taylor. in the Superior Court, to-
day. There is complaint, a cross-complaint by
the husband, amended complaint, and an
answer by Mr.. Dittemore. Dir. and Mrs. Ditto
more were originally married in 1875. 1t was
their second matrimonial venture, az Mrs.
Dittemore had been divorced from her first hus-
band and Mr.. Dittemore from his first wife. Mr..
Dittemore had daughter by his first marriage,
the custody of whom he stili maintains. After
ten years of life with her second husband, Mrs.
Dittsmore, in February, 1885, sued for divorce
on the ground of illtreatment. CROSS
complaint filed by Mr.. Dittemore in
which he denied the allegation, and when the
case came to trial. in the fall Of 1885, the decree
was granted to him, after an agreement had
been made that Mrs. Dittemore should receive
$1,000 in real estate and 81, 900 in cash, from
MIN, as Alimony. In January one year ago,
the parties were remarked and apparently were
living happily until recently, when Mrs Ditto
more came forward with another application for
divorces and SIS 600 alimony alleging that DIR.
Dittemore WAS cruel and profane to her. and
BAD neglected to provide for her in accordance
with his means. Immediately following ths
filing of the complaint, Mr.. Dittemore
presented to the . cross complaint, IN
which he says that instead OF the plaintiff hav-
Ing any thing to complain of. 1t is he who has
the burden OF the grievances TO bear. he
makes numerous charges against bis wife, among
them that her conduct has become so
outrageously cruel and exasperating that it is
I'm apostolic for him TO longer endure her COM
pany. He says that 'sher marvellous and inordi-
nate cupidity and her love for money induce her
70 DO questionable things" He details at length
their first marriage and divorce. and alleges
that after their separation had been legalizsd
she set deliberately at work 70 bring about their
reunion claiming to be penitent, and that she
could not bear the idea of being separated from
their child. a boy, VINO had been left IN the Gus
tody of the father. After detailing how she sue
ceeded in bringing second marriage about. he
upon him that 'the plaintiff had
simply concealed her c1ovsn foot. and
that the fires of her temper were
simply emoldering, and not extinguished-
that within very short time after their mar
riage her devilish temper again asserted itself,
and from that time compliments life has
been made burden and HE home a hell
Mr. Dittemors also charges ia his cross-com-
plant that Mrs. Dittsmore has i'll treated his
daughter, who is now a lovely young girl of
seventeen. The cross complaint closes with the
allegation that Mrs. Dittemore still has the ali
yaony she received when the former divorce WAS
granted, intact, and is simply bringing this suit
to wrest still more money from him.
On Monday Mrs. Dittemore fled supplement-
al complaint as an answer to to the cross-com-
plant of her husband. in which she makes some
ing SO brings other persons of prominence into
the trial. Mr.. Dittemore yesterday filed his an
swer to the amended complaint, in which he
simply denies all the allegations made. AS the
parties to the suit arc people we'll known, and of
conslderabl wealth, the trial will attract much
attention. Some of the ablest attorneys of the
city have been retained on each side.