The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1892-12-30
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.
Mrs. Louise Clark VS.. E. Warren
Clark.
Cruel and Inhunan Treatment and Fail
ure to Support, the Causes Alleged.

In the Chancery Court last We'd
nesday bill was filed by Mrs. Louise
Clarke against her husband, the Rev.
| e. Warren Clarke, asking that the
bonds of matrimony between them
be severed, that she be allowed
alimouy aid attorney fees out OF his
ale aud that the custody OF the
Gin IN be given to the complainant.
The bill charges cruel and inhu-
man treatment, desertion ana lalluie
to support 1t charges that for six
wears the defendant Clarke has utter
iS failed to provide the necessities OF
life for his family, AMI that but for
an allowance of 81 800 year from the
complainRnt's father, the vile ana
children would have suffered. II
alleges that for six years the defend
ant has spent comparatively little Oh
his time at home; that he would leave
| his home and his family without
making the least preparation or ar
ran cement for their support, and re-
main away for months at time
That when he would return and
spend few weeks with his family
and contribute anything towards de-
fraving household expenses, he al
ways cruelty emphasized the fact that
he was only paying his board.
The bill charges that his treatment
OF his wife has been wilful, malicious
and studied; the very "ref1utment oil
cruelty" 1t states that on the hearing
of the cause letters from Clarke to his
wife will be read, clearly proving his
cold, cruel, studied, fDhuman treat
ment. An extract from one of these
letters is in substance as follows
Shortly after the death OF their littBs
girl, Ruth, some six months since,
the complainant had written to her
husband, asking his re-enee aud
sympathy III her distress in reply he
cOngtatulates himself over the death
l0f his child because it sewers one OF
the links that binds hinito her, his
wife.
Another allegation of the bill is
that the defendant has insisted upon
giving away one Of his children.
Some rich acquaintance had offered
o take the child aud provide Tor II,
! provided Clarke and his wife would
sign sn agreement quito aiming
ali their right, title aud interest i'll 1t
krhe complainant, prompted by q
| Muther's love, refused to entertain
INV such proposition, while the de
| PENDANT insisted upon accepting the
IF r\snd became furious that the
mothex would not agree.
| Tine Dill cOnNdiAS Obhpl ShrAi . " $3.50
extracts from letters, which canno'
now be gi%en to the pubic because
tile ATTORNEYS in the case have posses
sion of the 6EII and refuse to give Ii
Mr Clarke * an Episcopal min
ister. though foN Lite years he has
had no charge. When he first came
here some five or six years ago H.
FIR, uuentIy oc:upisdNthe pulpit at Iht
St. Peters Epist ppak Chufch' Bu'
for tue last year or two he seems t'
nave lest the confidence OF bIs
church aud invi ltiOnsN TO preaGI
have been withheh8 from MN u ''
neglect of his family has been more
| or less talked abOU, though MS cruel
and Inhuman treatment WAS no
generally known; for some reason Oh
other he had also lost the cOnhdeb1'
of the community and was not mex
in that high esteem by the ganera
,nblic that his sacred calling entitled
him to. 4.
The complainant, Mrs Clarke, i
loved and highly esteemed by thos'
who know her. She is deVou
Christian woman and devoted moth
Ter, She has five or six small emu
dren. and devote5 her life to theL
care and protection. She IS moo
est, shrinking, timid woman, ana l
much mortified at the publicity ina
must come from such proceeding
Nothing but the profOundest symna
thy, however, is expressed Tor her D
the entile com nunEy.