The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-06-29
THE HUNTS MARITAL WOES
AWealthy Soap Maker Charges His Wife
with Failing to Account for Checks.
Makes Other Serious Accusations. Which She
Denies in Cross Bill-Ruling In the
Shaffer- Mason Case.
AN OLD MANS YOUNG WIFE.

AN OLD MANS YOUNG WIFE.
John A Hunt Makes Charges Against His
spouse I'm a Divorce Suit
The Hunt divorce case was called for
trial IN Room of the Superior Court yes
terday afternoon. John A. Hunt. proprie-
tor of the Hunt Soap and Chemical Com
pany. q few months ago filed snit for di-
vorce from his wife. who is many years
younger than he, alleging cruel and in
human treatment as q cause for the d.
vorce. Mrs. Hunt filed q cross-complaint.
asking that the decree be granted her and
also asked for slimony.
Judge Howe. appearing for Hunt. In his
opening statement yesterday afternoon,
said that the impression that the Hunt
Soap and Chemical Company and John A.
Hunt were one aud the same was errone-
Gus, and that the evidence would show
that in May preceding the marriage
Hunt had been very sick and did not
expect TO live. and had. at this time. trans
ferred TO his brother in trust for his broth
er's son. all his Hunt's interest In the
Hunt Soap and Chemical Company. He
also said that he thought tho evidence
would show that the defendant had aban-
doned the plaintiff. and gone to her mother
IN CINCINNATI.
In his opening statement Judge Howe
also insinusted that the evidence would
show that during the time Mrs. Hunt had
resided with her husband she had secretly
used money OF the company to the amount
of &. 800. and said that this amount had
been paid out on checks. no account of
which appears upon the books or the COM
pany during the time his wife was actin Y
as bookkeeper. He said that Hunt had
been in the habit of signing checks in
blank. and his wife would I'LL them ont as
necessity required during his absence on
business. These checks. he said. had. sew
eral times, been raised to amounts larger
than was necessary, ana larger than wss
shown by the stub.
In one instance he said the stub sho owed
o check for "a TO pay gas bill and the
check corresponding with the stub was for
$40. Among the checks not noted on the
books OF she company, ne said. there was
one to man named Young, former
sweetheart of Mrs. Hunts. and also one to
q building and loan association at CinciD-
natl In which Mrs. Hunts mother was
interested. this latter check being for the
SUN of S406. There were also checks, be
the regular pay roll. but which would have
required five and six weekly pay rolls In Q
month.
Mr.. Duncan. in his statements of the case
for the defendant and cross complainant.
said that their evidence would show that
the plaintiff was q man who had never
been able to deal smoothly with his em-
ployes or any one else, and that the al
legged abandonment on the part OF the Cross
plaintitf and trip 10 her mother In Cincin-
natl. was. in fact. no abandonment at all.
but that Mrs. Hunt went to Cincinnati on
q visit, and while there her husband
shipped her household goods to her, but
that she had them stopped in transit and
shipped back to this city. Mr.. Duncan
said they would show that the checks
spoken Of as having been given without
any note of them being made on the books
of the company were given in the regular
transaction of the business. Young. TO
whom one of them was given, Is q book
keeper in one of the local banks and
would. Mr.. Duncan said. be able to explain
all his transactions with the company. The
check TO the Cincinnati building ana loon
association. he said. they would show had
been given with the full knnwledge and
consent of Hunt.
Hunt was put on the stand. and testifed
and married the defendant In January of
1890. Prior to that time. he said. she had
been employed in the office of man named
Young In Cincinnati. whore he became 40
quainted with her. Afterwards Young sold
out. and Hunt employed her as book
keeper. They were married within about
three months after she came to work for
him. After their engagement she went
homo Co CINCINNATI. and Was to meet him
At Hamilton, o. He said that before he
went to Hamilton he received letter from
her stating that her parents thought she
out TO have some property settled upon her
before the marriage. and that when he
met her at Hamilton he asked her If she
thought be onght to settle property upon
her, and she replied that she did.
He refused 10 do this and left on bust
ness trip. When he returned to this city
he found her at work bookkesper and in
. few days IL was agreed again that they
should be married at Hamilton. o.. and she
went home and met him according to agree
ment and they were married. He testified
that after their marriage she wanted him
TO transfer 10 her $4,000 worth of property.
He then gave q detailed account of the
financial condition of the Hunt Soap and
Chemical Company and its transactions
since incorporation. The case attracted q
large crowd of women TO the room. the
most OF whom were friends of and sympa-
thizers with the defendant In. the suit.