The record-union., 1891-02-15
ARMSTRONG SUSTAINED.
The Supreme Courts Decision in the
Cooper Divorce Case.
Mrs. Cooper's Testimony as to Cruelty
Was Sufficiently Cor
roIoorated.

The divorce pro ceeding heard by Judge
Armstrong in this city some time ago, in
which Joanna Cooper sued for an annull-
ment of her marriage contract with John
+. Cooper, has again been revived by an
opinion from the Supreme Court, in which
the judgment of the lower court is af-
hrmed.
Mrs. Cooper commenced the action on
the ground of extreme cruelty, and
charged her husband with acts of this
character, extending over a period of
several years. MIR. Cooper admitted all
OF the averments against him, and Judge
Armstrong entered a decree dissolving
the bonds of matrimony between the
husband and wife and awarded her S., 200
as her share of the property. The de-
iendant was given the care of the two
minor children. Within ten days after
this order had been made by the Court,
Mrs. Cooper changed her attorney and
moved for a new trial on the ground that
the findings We're not justified by the
evidence, because they were supported
only by her own uncontradicted testi-
mony.
STRUCK AND PINCHED HER.
At the trial, Mrs. Cooper testified to
many acts of cruelty on the part of her
husband, such as repeatedly calling her
harsh and oppfoiDiOuS names, threatening
her with violence, seizing her and pinch
ing her arms until they were black and
blue, striking her upon the face and
body, leaving black and blue marks from
the blows, throwing her upon the floor
in rude and angry manner, and COM
pelling her to leave the family residence
and seek shelter elsewhere. Which acts,
she claimed, were done without any fault
on her part. She also testified that about
two years before, her husband COM
menced an action against her for divorce
on the ground Of cruelty, without any
cause therefor, and finally dismissed the
same after having shamed and humili-
ated her by the charges he made. The
complaint in the former action was intro
duced in evidence, and it stated among
other things that Mrs. Cooper, by innu-
endos and slurs and untruths had at
tempted to
POISON THE MINDS OF THE CHILDREN
For the purpose of causing them to mis-
trust and dislike their father, and to de-
prive him Of their affection; and that con-
tinuously since her return from Chicago,
she had said in the presence of the
children, when the father was absent.
that she hoped some accident would be-
fall him so that he could not return to his
family.
Grove L. Johnson, Mrs. Cooper's at
torney, was also called as a witness in
her behalf, and stated that he was well
acquainted with both parties having
known them for many years. In CONVEX
sation with John f. Cooper, the latter had
admitted to him that on several occasions
he had seized his wife by the arm and
forcibly prevented her from leaving the
house, and that on one occasion he
pinched her arm and called her vile
names. Mr.. Johnson further testified
that cooper was man of strong and un-
governable temper, and accustomed to
have his own way; that Mrs. Cooper was
a small,
FRAIL AND DELICATE WOMAN,
And could not stand much mental suffer-
ing. He knew of the divorce proceed
lngS brought by Cooper against her. and
was cognizant of the fact that Mrs. Cooper
was afraid to contest the same. The case
caused her much sorrow and mental Suf-
fering, as he learned from consultations
with her at the time.
The above was in substance all of the
testimony showing cause for divorce. and
IN the appeal which was taken, the only
question was, whether or not her testi-
mony was sufficiently corroborated to
meet the requirements of the Civil Code,
which provides, "That no divorce can be
granted upon the default of the defendant.
or upon the uncorroborated statement.
soIIISoloI VI Oh the DdfC1eS.'
The supreme Court holds that there
was some corroborating evidence in the
case. One of the acts Of cruelty alleged
IN the complaint was the institution by
the husband against the wife of former
| suit for divorce, without any cause there
\ for. The charges made in the complaint
We're, If untrue, extremely cruel and un-
just, and such as
NO HUSBAND SHOULD PREFER
Against his own wife; that the charges
were made was shown by the
complaint itself, and that they
weres untrue must be presumed
from the fact that he voluntarily dis
missed his suit, though he had by threats
and fear prevented the wife from appear
ing to contest it.
These facts, with the testimony of
Mr.: Johnson, certainly corroborated the
plaintiffs testimony as to one act of ex-
ti-eme cruelty on the part of the defend
MT" says the Supreme Court, land we
think this sufficient .corroboration to up
hold the judgment"