St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-09-23
wooded COUPLES WOES.
Judge Brill Called Upon to ACt as
Arbitrator.
RETURNED TO HER FATHER.
Deserion, Cruelty and Drunkenness
Prominent Factors in Six Di-
VOrCe Suits.


negk against Fred Sturnegk. When
the plaintiffs name was called a hand
some young woman, prethlly dressed,
took the witness stand. She stated that
she was married March II, and that
three days after her husband began
quarreling with her. She lived with
him two months, during which time
he gave her but SD. lie treated her
cruelty and accused her falsely. He
never took her out anywhere. A stout
lady, with a good natured face, was the
next witness. The plaintiff, she said, is
my niece. Mr.. and Mrs. Sturnegk lived
at my house for a while. A few days
after their marriage they had quarrel.
Sternegk acted like a crazy man. At
one time he threatened to have US both
arrested. He drank a great deal and
called his wife hard names. Mrs.
Sternegk had to leave him and come to
my house. Ten days after the
wedding she returned to him
again. He wouldn't give her
enough to eat l thought SIS month was
plenty for her. The court took the case
under adviSement.
James 7. MOrand VS.. Julia VI. MOTand.
The first witness called i'm this case was
the plaintiff, James f. MOrand, we'll
dressed man about tWenty-SiX years of
age. He was married at jackson, Wis,
Sept. p, 1881. He. with his wife, after
wards came 10 st. Paul. March 16, 1885,
Mrs. MOrand said she wanted to 60 home
to her parents in Nebraska. She would
give no reason for so doing. The fol-
Lowing night she left him and he
NOT SEEN HER SINCE
He believed she never cared for him,
and that she married him simply to
escape a diSagTeeable sttpfather. Jen-
HE Ray, a witness. said plaintiff was
very kind to defendant. Mrs. MOrand
told her one day she was going to her
mothers. She was homesick and
wanted to get home. She had never
complained of her husband. The de-
cree of divorce was granted.
Delilah J. Kearney VS.. George
Kearney. This suit was the direct OPP
posite of the one preceding, the hus-
band in this ease being the deSerter.
"The sailors wife the sailors star shall
be" did not prove true i'll this case, for
Eearney, who was a sailor, proved also
rover, and Oh very slight prOYOcatiOn
hicd himself away to Western climeS.
Mrs. keaTney was the first witness.
They were married at Rockford. To-,
Jan. Is, 1854. a year later they came
to St. Paul to live. They first went to
live at her fathers house. Afterwards
they went to housekeeping, but kearney
refused to pay the rent. She then told
him she would move back to her fathers
house. This seemed TO incense him,
and one evening he quietly took his de-
parture. She had not heard from him
since.
Mrs. Pierce took the stand next and
said she knew Mr.. Kearney in Rock
ford, 10. In her opinion he was no
man at all and was laZineSS perSOnified.
Chester Pierce told of Kearney's de-
parture from st. Paul for Portland, Or.
lie had never seen him since he left.
After Grace Edmundson had testified as
TO Kearney's character, the court
granted the decree with leave to plant
III to
ASSUME HER MAIDEN NAME,
Joseph Rummel VS.. Pauline Rummel.
The plaintiff, a German who couldn't
speak English, was called, and said that
he married defendant in Germany, July
TO- 1879. In 1854 he came to America,
thinking he could do better, but his
''fraulein" would not come along.
Three months after arrival he found
himself i'll comfortable circumstances,
and wrote 10 Pauline to come on.
She answered the letter and said she
wouldn't come. He had written five or
six times since but the letters that he
lOnged for never came. These state
mentS constituted the grounds for the
divorce asked for. This was denied on
the ground that the deSertiOn had not
continued for three years from the time
OF the commencement of the action.
Aida S. Green vs.. Frank Green. This
was little case and short time was
in Il Of lire
Green, the plaintiff, testified that she
was married to defendant May II, rs,
at Saltwater. They lived happily to-
gether until September, 1872, when
Green took a trip to Utah. He had
written to her right along until 1874,
when his correspondence ceased. Mrs.
Green's sister testified that the plain
tiff came to live with her after de-
fendent had gone away. She knew of
no reason why Green had deserted his
wife. The application for divorce was
granted.
The last and most interesting case,
interesting because of the prominence
of at least one of the parties 10 the
action, was that of Fannie Wilson
Wright against Thomas Wilson Wright.
Besides the judge and clerk and a few
reporters there was no one in the court
room when the case was called. The
plaintitf is the daughter of Russell
Blakely of this city. During the hear
ing Of the other suits, Mrs. Wright, to-
gether with her father and another
lady, occupied one OF
THE SMALL COURT CHAMBERS.
The reason of this, of course. was to
avoid the rude stareS of curious, gaping
spectators, who are always on hand
when anything sensational is in the
wind. When the case was called all
three entered the court room, Mrs.
Wright leading, followed by her father
and an elderly lady dressed in deep
mourning. The plaintiff is tall, hand
some lady, beautiful in face and figure,
with large, lustrOuS eyes and dark hair.
she was attired in suit of grey mate
rial. and wore a jaunty black hat
trimmed with dark and light ribbons.
The complaint stated the ages of plain
till and defendant TO be thiTty-One and
thirty-twO years respectively. They
were married at St. Paul Sept. IS. 1879,
the issue of the union being two chill
dren, Lillian, now eight years old, and
Harry who died. The defendant, the
complaint further averred, had been
grossly derelict in his duties as hus-
band, habitually intoxicated, and wholly
neglected to provide for his wife. This
continued until October. 1887, when his
habits becoming intOlerable the plaintiff
with her child sought her fathers
house. Her husband was a gambler,
unthrifty, lewd and licentious.
Mrs. Wright told the story of her
woes as follows: My husband always
drank more or less. He would 60 off
Oh sprees lasting three or four days.
His excuses were worst during 1887 and
1888. He spent all his money for liquor,
so that L was obliged to dispose of
evarvthiup / had IN SuDnOrt mvcaIf
and child. We always boarded, be-
cause we never had enough money to
20 to housekeeping. l lived with him
until could stand If no lnnpnr When |