The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-07-19
SUITS FOR DIVORCE.
Husbands and Wives Who
Seek Separation.
Who
rolErs MEN NOT INDICTED
Testimony Taken In the scotland Case
several Couples Set Asunder-
Grand Jury not Finished.

Judge Iichtenburg was occupied all day
Yesterday with divorce cases. He intended
to have heard and disposed only of those
In which there was no contest, but by q
misunderstanding the suit of Sophia SEQ
land against Jacob Scotland was placed on
the docket and a very vigorous defence
was made. The suit is brought by Mrs.
Scotland for divorce from Jacob Scotland. of
the Seattle Tug and Barge Company, on
The ground of cruelty. The only witnesses
examined were Mrs. Scotland and Captain
Bradley. United States deputy marshal.
The evidence of the wife went 10 show
that Mr.. Scotland had been harsh in his
treatment Of her and that be had particu-
larly objected TO the visits of Captain
Beadley. Both witnesses testified very
positively that although Mr.. Bradley had
been friend of the family for five years,
there was not the slightest ground for sus-
picion on the part of the husband of more
familiarity than the long acquaintance
warranted. and that Mr.. Bradley was
usually at the house at Mr. Scoiand's re-
qnest and wish or order that Bradley
might assist him with his books. In an
sngry moment Scotland accused Mrs. SEQ
land Of being dead in love" with Beadley,
who is a bachelor. and from that time the
latter Immediately ceased his visits. At
the close Of the eross-examination the case
was continued until Monday night at
o'clock. Scotland IS said to be worth SIG
co. There are two children BY the mar
riage. There is q large number of wit
nesses TO be examined.
The court granted divorce TO Robert C..
Ball from Kate L. Ball for cruelty and
desertion. They were married at San
Francisco in 1874
Ellen Brannen (nee McElroy) was
granted separation from Thomas ID. Bran
men On the ground of neglect. The plain
tf Is the owner of ten acres in Island
county, and lots 2 and 8, block 6. Boren
& Denny's addition. Brannen is said to
be worth several thousand dollars.
Mrs. Mary and II. A. Vanoewater Sc
cured divorce. They have been separated
Once 1880. after eight years of married life.
They were wed in Hebron, Jefferson
county, Wis, and have two children.
Alleging deserticn as q cause Minnie
Heffner asked for and obtained divorce
from John H. F. Heffner. They were
married in Ohio January /, 1sSs, bat in
March OF the following year he deserted
her and is now supposed TO be in Grome-
vile, O.
For similar reason Rose Spencer was
divorced from her husband. They were
married at Providence, r. l., in 1851, and
In 1855 he deserted her and is now believed
70 be in Worcester, Mass.
Mary Joliey was married to Henry Jol-
ley in Seattle October % 1889, but was yes
terday granted q divorce on account Of his
cruelty.
The complaint upon which H. L. Ed
wards obtained divorce from Candace
Edwards shows that they were married at
Hastings, Neb.. in 1854, and that while he
is of slight build and delicate constitution
his wife was q robust woman of good
health. weighing rs pounds He alleges
that she treated him with great cruelty,
threatening 10 kill him and driving him
from the house.
Among other cases. upon all Of which ac-
ton was deferred, were those OF A. A. En-
man VS.. @. E. Ehman; Adolphus C. Easel
VS.. Fannie L. Easel; Catherine Large VS..
Isaac L. Large; Linda e. Denison vs.. G..
N. Denison; Nellie NJ Chaplin (nee Morris)
vs.. F. b. Chaplin, in which case the wife
deserted in December.
AAt @soc PoHt AAiASA1A4AcAf " as ti1at
of ". A. Harris against Mary A. Harris,
who were marriedtat Keesyer Greek, BOYD
county, KY, in 1852 The complainant
AYERS that his wife deserted him, and is
now living dissolute life in Caitles-
burg. KY.
The court granted $40 alimony pending
trial of suit for divorce brought by
Esther Perry, now residing with her par
eats at Black Diamond, against Abram G..
Perry, a miner, who is said TO have con-
siderable property az Roslyn, Anacortes
and other places. The complaint is cruelty
on the part of the husband, based mainly
upon his utter disregard of her wishes.
She left him once. but returned 10 him on
promises of more gentleness, but she al
leges that they were not kept. aud she was
thereby subjected to great suffering of body
and mind.