Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-01

Ct ligoro5 complaints 33 } et sact
cns1s Do.i,.lu ..os.. .o.1s.t A. - ----~'
what difficult to obtain information
about the divorce records, the only
books or records open to the reporter
in the county clerks Office bearing upon
the subject being the register Of actions,
which merely gives the names OF the
persons, the statement that il is di-
vorce cabe and the name of the attorney
for the plaintiff. The papers in these
cases are not at the disposal OF the re-
porter. In this county, the county
clerk makes no effort to prepare any
general statement of such matters, and
any one who wishes classified informa-
tion on the subjectof divorces is obliged
to huntthrough numerous large volumes
of registers of actions and pick out the
divorces from all the other complaints
which have been filed and entered. The
county clerk and his deputies obey lit
orally the law shrouding this class OF
litigation in mystery. and the work goes
merrily on.
A. HERALD reporter yesterday ascer-
tanned that up to the present time this
year, there shave been 189 divorce COM
plants fled, in most of which DEGREES
have already BEEN granted. These com.
plants by months were as follows: Jam
uary, Is; February, "a; March, 20 (;
April. 81; May, 10; June, 81; /; July, IA !;
August, %; September, 25.
For the same period last year 152
complaints had been filed, and there
were 2O2 in all during the year. With
the same ratio Of increase so far OBJ
served this year, 1892 will beat the. rec
ord by so or 60, quite healthy increase
in the number Of disillusioned married
people.
/ Quite noticeable fact in connection
with the complaints filed this year is
the large proportion of suits instituted
by the feminine portion of the disgrun-
tied ones. Out Of the 1S9 suits begun,
125 of them were started by the wives.
This does not seem to indicate that the
married men of Los Angeles county are
giving entire satisfaction in their mar
ital relations; and it may be we'll for
those profound philosophers who like to
speculate upon such subjects, to cast
their eagle eyes upon this anomalous
disproportion. and account for it.
The divorce record OF previous years
is not nearly 80 extensive as the past
two years. The number OF suits insti-
tuted before the years mentioned was
very much smaller. For some reason
the number ia increasing quite rapidly.
The following is list of the suits thus
iar instituted'th this year:
January-M. M. Robinson We. Lewis
W. Robinson, Mrs. M. L. Huhbell We.
Gresham Hubbell, Frank E.. Truscott
vs. Victoria Florence Truecott, Mary A.
Farrell vs.. John j. Farrell, Sarah Louise
Crotzer We. Ebensze Crotzer, Anna P.
Sherman We. Hiram M. Sherman, War
rem v. Stewart We. Esther r. Stewart,
Elami E. Wilson vs. Alfred Wilson,
Addison w. Lee vs. Eliza Lee, Martin
L. Culp vs. Lavina M. Culp, Louisa w.
Wildrick vs. James A. Wildrick, Chris
tian Smalley vs.. Rachel Smalley, Grace
E. Green vs.. Lelan O. Green, AIzada s.
West, vs.. s. j. West, Clara McMunn
vs. John j. McMunn, Fannie M. Nc.
Cormick vs.. J. N. Mccormick.
February-E. E. Atkinson We. AL
metea Atkinson, A. p. Bulls vs. David
Bulls, Lucy Lawrence Lyons vs. VIM.
Lyons. Amelia Shaw vs.. VIM. Shaw,
Geo. A. Hamilton vs.. Emily s. Hamil-
ton, Maggie Myers VS.. Edward W. My
ers, Maria Brizzolsri vs.. Georgia Briz.
zolari, Harriet T. Mathews VS.. Tbeo-
dore Mathews, Ada Bell Bruce vs.
George T. Bruce, Cora Mccain vs. r. r.
Cain, John Eliza beth Milan We. Jesse
Hunter a,snul marriage), Nettie Bradley
vs. Gesfpe J. Bradley, Sarah H.
Bartlett vs. Enoch M. Bartlett,
Leona Robbins vs. Joseph Robbins,
Elizabeth Hunter vs.. Johr Slunter,
Amanda Walker vs. Robert C.. Walker,
Ethel Annie Houghton vs. VIM. Herbert
Houghton, Ingebar Johnnesson vs.
Lars Johnnessen, Nina Edith Horton
vs. Posy Tulare Horton, James b. Ser
viss vs. Lydia A. Serviss, Laura Jenkins
vs.. Bristol Jenkins, Caroline Belli We.
Carlo Belli, Cordelia I. Philbin vs.. Thos.
F. Philbin, Mary A. Mott vs. Amos s.
Mott. n
March-Kate X. johnson We. Roscoe
A. Johnson. Aeren Gottleb VS.. Lena
Gottleb, Mary G. Wright vs. VIM. M.
Wright, Ida May Harris We. Glare s.
Harris, Nettie E. Athey We. VIM. E..
Athey, John A. Jackson We. Sarah E.
Jackson, Larah L. Yoakum Va. Benz. F.
Yoakum, Della Barnhill vs. John Barn
hill, Marsaret A. Collier VS.. Simael
Collier, Maud g. Hufstutler We. Sanford
Hufstutler, J.. HI. Welch vs. Mamie
Welch. Mary Cameron vs.. BENZ. Came
ron, M. ]. Henry We. VIM. Henry, Glenn
entina Rose We. Joe Rose, Edward j.
Taylor vs.. Lizzie M. Taylor, Zenia p.
Thompson vs. Thomas Thompson, Nellie
y. West VS.. Frank A. West, Sophia
Charles de Lugo vs.. Bias A. Lugo,
Evelina L. Winslow Va. Elbert E. Wins
low, Maria Louisa Lynch vs. James NJ.
Lynch.
April-Mary B. Hyland VS.. Jay w.
Hyland, Albert Shultz VS.. Emma Shultz,
Elizabeth Smith vs.. George r Smith,
;zie Victorson VS.. Herman Victorson,
Clarence H. Payne vs. Eliza ]. Payne,
Arte A. Richardson vs. Seldom 0. Rich
;ardson, Paul Dahlitz va. Ora Dahlitz.
Anderson Reed We. Rachel Reed, Alice
Reuter- vs. August Reuter-, Emma v.
Smith vs. George Smith, Minnie Bart
lett VS.. Thomas Bartlett. Louisa Couch
vs. Nicolas Couch, Len j .Scheck, jr., vs.
Alice Scheck, Mary Alice Snyder vs..
Douglass Snyder, Alice J. Surber VS..
John s. Surber, Henry D. Barnard vs.
Lucy L. Barnard, Jenna M. Smith vs.
George M. Smith, Warren v. Stewart
W. Esther r. Stewart, Mary E. Borden
vs.. w. /. Borden, Annie Kramer VS.. s,
G. Kramer, John E. A. Brent We. Leono.
ra Brent, Rosa Lee Barnes VS.. Joseph
Barnes, Alice Reuter- VS.. August Reuter-,
Lizzie Willard vs.. w. r. Willard, Adeli
Rousseau VS.. John B Rousseau, Sarah
Hickeon vs. James Hicks0n (alimony)
Fannie Killebrew vs.. John j,
Killebrew, Sophia Morris vs. FRANK
Morris. Jessie A. Pasn,ore vs. Frank A.
Pasmose, Edith Tutner vs.. Fred Turner