The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-04-09
THE CHURCH DIVORCE SUIT.
The Wife Granted Decree and Alimony-
Salient Points from Judge Pughs Decision.

COLUMBUS, O., April s. Judge Pugh
rendered his decision in tho famous Church
divorce case this morning, granting Mrs.
Church decree of divorce, on the grounds
of cruelty, giving her custody of three
children and S40O per annum alinony. The
decision is a surprise to many, as only one
charge came anything like being sustained.
and that was cruelty, upon which the
divorce was granted. In his decision Judge
Pugh said:
The plaintiff. Margaret J. Church. prays for a
divorce from her husband, Samuel II. Church.
Adultery gross neglect OF duty and extreme
cruelty are alleged the grounds for the prayer.
The adultery is ayerred to have been committed
with Teresa Schirtzinger; the gross neglect con-
sisted 1t Is charged in place In the petition,
of failure to furnish her with the common neces-
sites of life; but it narrowed by the evil
dence of the plaintiff TO a charge of failure to
furnish her with clothing, wearing apparel and
other articles necessary for her comfort and con-
venience, and the extreme cruelty, 1t Is said,
tine use of violent, profane and threatening
language toward her, which was frequently so
prOfane and offensive as to keep her in constant
dread and terror; of ordering her from the table,
from his room and house; and she AYERS that the
defendant has so threatened, abused and NAL
sha afraid 81 snS was 6p Sch ns isS
him. By his answer, the defendant denied all
the charges made against him in the most posi-
justification, recrimination or condonation.
The hearing of this case on the evidence
was prOtracted to great length, the record
of the evidence numbering about three
thousand pages. Considerable bitterness
and asperity was displayed. especially by
case with degree of ability and zeal which
shows that their feelings were enlisted in
the case of their clients. The friends of the
parties, and indeed the larger part of the
.A.~L Ill
the controversy. As to the first charge, that
OF adultery, the Judge said:
McCaskey and Lannon testified to still another
occurrence, when the window blinds in the
adultery was committed at that time. the de-
fendant and Teresa have contradicted these two
witnesses. The number of witnesses on each
side OF the dispute was equal. Was adultery
suaded that 1t was, but after looking at the evil
dence from every conceivable point Of view.
am constrained to hold that it. not sutii-
ciently convincing to establish the charge. The
presumption that the charge is untrue, arising
from his previous character and reputation as
chaste and virtuous man. must be thrown into
the scale In his favor Witnesses testified in his
behalf on this subject.
The Judge then severely criticised the
evidence of Walter McCaskey, one of the
witnesses for the plaintiff. On the charge
of gross neglect of duty he said:
The charge of gross neglect of duty was dis
proved. 1t may be true that the defendant did
not make judicious expenditure of all his in
come but the plaintiff participated in the bene-
fits of most all the expenditures that made;
they were not enjoyed by him alone.
On the charge of cruelty, the court said:
Modern law and humanity regard cruelty
the part of the husband, when 1t Is deliberate,
extreme and habitual, as not less fragrant
cause for divorce than that of adultery on the
part of the wife, Upon hearing the evidence,
come TO the conclusion that the defendant had
an imperious and dOmineerng disposition, which
had borne heavily upon the plaintiff. One por-
ton OF his evidence conclusively proved this,
and IL also proved purpose on his part. at one
time to drive his wife into subsection TO his WILL
her - - fool; and - - wretch. and
- liar, the devils dam. and whitelivered
niger; told her that he lOathed and hated her.
that he did not love her at the time of
their marriage: that she was the
most defOrmed object he ever saw; that she had
the most ragged character that she had no mod
esty or shame; that she was not fit to be wife
or mother, and he threatened to put her out of
the house the next day, and told her if she was
man he would cowhde her. 1t does not appear
that there Is even possibility of reconciliation
between the plaintiff and defendant. They sep
arated under circumstances Of scandal and dis
for social position and other moral considera-
tons did not seem strong enough to prevent the
separation. The court 6nds that the charge of
extreme cruelty has been substantially proved
and for that reason decree of divorce is
awarded.
The children are to be sent to Mr..
Church's residence Immediately after din
ner, every Saturday and Sunday.