The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1893-10-14
HICKMAN DIVORCE CASE,
The Wife's Suit for Separation
in Salem Circuit Court.

u
was the chancery cause of Mrs. Eta
Hickman VS.. Noah Hickman. The OBJ.
iect of this suit was for the purpose of
obtaining divorce, "a mensa ct thoro,"
on the grounds of cruel and barbarous
treatment and desertion.
A. b. Pugh appeared for Mrs. Hook
man, and, in a lengthy argument, set
forth the merits Of her side of the
cause. 1t appears that distant and
strained relationship had existed be
tween Mr.. and Mr.. Hickman which
eliminated in family disturbance
about year ago, which arose by Mr..
Hickman severely chastising his son,
Vernon, for concealing buggy, using a
heavy leather strap with a buckle st the
end for the above purpose.
Upon Mrs. Hockman's interfering to
protect her son 1t is claimed that the
father and husband struck her and
violently pushed her against the wall.
from the effects of which she suffered
severely. Mr.. Hickman then left the
house and has not since returned nor
contributed to her support nor that of
her children, whereupon the above suit
for divorce was instituted. Soon there
after an order was obtained from Judge
Blair granting alimony to the amount
of $50 dollars per month and $50 counsel
fees for the purpose of maintaining the
suit.
1t was shown at the time Of applying
for this order that Hickman was pos
sessed OF real and personal property
consisting of stores, lots and dwellings
to the amount of about 100000. On
the day OF the granting of this order N.
Hickman made an assignment to
l.. G. Hansbrougn, trustee, Of
all his property, both real and
personal, for the benefit of his cred
itors. The validity and priority of this
deed Of assignment was attacked by the
counsel for Mrs. Hickman, who sought
to lien of the courts order. Judge
Blair, however, yesterday morning rem
dered an opinion sustaining the validity
and priority Of said deed.
Some time after the institution of
this suit for divorce, and after the above
order was obtained, a number of garn-
ishments were issued by Mrs. Hickman
against the tenants Of n. Hickman re.
curing them to appear and state
whether or not they held any money
due N. Hickman. The facts brought
out in these proceedings caused Judge
Blair to issue rule against N. Hook
man to show cause why ho should not
be fined for violating the order of court.
Hickman, who is in another State. sent
his affidavit to his counsel stating that
he meant no contempt OF court, and
other answers to said rule, but counsel
for Mrs. Hickman objected to this mode
OF answering, contending that answer
should be made in person, and main
tanning that this answer did not prop
N n o. ion, 81 40
matter as to divorce.
The principal grounds advanced in
favor Of Mrs. Hickman were that of
cruelty and desertion, and in her bill
OF complaint she alleged in substance
that he was the associate of evil and
disreputable characters" and therefore
not a fit guardian for his children, and
that she was in dread of being assaulted
and hurt.
Col. R. II. Logan opened the argu-
ment for the defence and contended
that the allegation of cruelty was not
sustained by the evidence; that had the
wife been struck the blow was intended
for the son, whom the father had
r ght to chastise and correct. He was
followed by Col. G.. w. Hansbrough,
also for Hickman, who read to the
court his ably written and eloquent
answer tnat hau been nled in the cause.
This answer set forth fully the con.
tent.ons OF the defence ana claimed
that Hoffman had always amply pro
vded for his wife and family; that the
house in which they lived had been
decided as gift by Hickman to his wife.
1t was then contended that there was
not sufficient proof of desertion; that
the decided cases OF Virginia held that
the statements of Hickman that he did
not intend TO return were not competent
evidence.
The amount Of alimony granted by
the court was objected to on the ground
OF depreciation OF value OF property and
rents in Salem. After the arguments
OF the plaintiffs counsel in closing the
papers were submitted TO the court for
decision.
OTHER COURT NOTES.