The morning call., 1894-04-11
JOHN RUssELL's GRIEVANCE
Unnatural Color of His Wife's
Hair Shamed Him.
WHAT HE SAYS IN HIS ANSWER
He Declares He Was Tricked Into
the Marriage and That His
Wife Is Untrue.

wife of John B. Russell. the shoe-dealer,
brought an action against her husband for
divorce and in the complaint alleged some
very unkind things.
This morning by his attorneys, Dorm u
Dorm, Russell will file his answer to the
complaint. The answer is vOlumiDous
document Of so closely typewriter pages.
The first portion of his answer is devoted
to admissions and denials. The defend
ant admits that he and the plaintiff have
been husband and wife since the 14th day
Of March, 1887, upon which day they were
married in this city. He admits that they
have one child. Lillian Belle Russell. now
years OF age.
Then Russell proceeds to deny pretty
much everything set forth in his wife's
complaint. During the past six years of
their married life he AYERS that he has not
treated Mrs. Russell with extreme or any
degree of cruelty. Nor did he cause her
to suffer physical OF mental anguish.
He denies that he threw his son against
the wall of the house. as alleged in the
complaint. thereby frightening Mrs. Rus
sell and causing her to suffer from severe
illness in consequence. He further denies
that his daughter Lillian was marked or
injured by his misconduct, alleging that
she Is physically perfect child.
He also denies that he referred to his
wife in the presence of her mother as ''a
baby face with biting tongue" he also
denies that he threatened TO kick his wife's
mother downstairs. Then follow series
OF denisls of charges in which the COM
plaint abounds. Russell asserts that he
did not choke his wife and that he did not
call her vile anG abusive names. He is
quite sure that he never called his wife "a
scolding hag" or told her that he wished
che were dead and in hades." The charge
of deserton is denied
On the contrary Russell alleges that his
wife became violently angry at him and
shut herself up in her mothers room at
his residence. Thereupon the complaint
alleges Mrs. Russell, her mother and
servant began a course of petty per-
secutions and spiteful conduct, which
made it impossible for him and his sons to
remain in the house He was forced to
leave the house temporarily by the con-
duct of his wife. Thereupon, he continues.
she proceeded to contract extravagant and
useless bills in his name TO worry him.
Russell says he was obliged to publish
notice that be would not be responsible for
such bills, one of which was $50 or there
abouts for psrfumery. All this time he
asserts he supplied his wife with a monthly
allowance of money amply sufficient for
her needs.
Several paragraphs of denials follow. in
which appears a statement that Russell did
not take up a carving-knife and attemi t to
ri ;fa Do do, tt.F
be applied any Of the following epithets to
his wife: "a scoIding bag" fighting
hag," ''a government mule, +" "a - ignor-
ant ass" "a narrow-minded woman"
"a boodlum," ''a lying. deceitful
hypocrite," ''a devilsh fend." "a lying
woman" "a hypocrite," "a wretch of
woman" 'a fendisE devil" "a fighting
devil" "a disreputable woman" or any
abusive or disrespectful epithets concern
Ing her.
The defendant denies that his personal
and real property in San Francisco is
worth $4,000. and declares that since his
marriage his fortune has decreased instead
OF increased.
In his cross-complaint Russell declares
he was tricked into marriage with the
woman who is now his wife. He asserts
that when he met her she represented her
self as the wife of Charles Gard. but stated
that her husband had deserted her. He
declares that she showed him marriage
certificate which he at the time believed
to be genuine. In order for her TO procure
a divorce from Gard Russell declares tha.
he gave her money with which to employ
counsel. The trial took place in Santa
Rosa. Russell says:
Upon the return Of plaintiff from Santa
Rosa after the hearing the defendant be-
came acquainted with the fact that the
prayer of plaintiff in the action had been
denied upon the ground that there was no
marriage between the plaintiff and Charles
Gard; that the plaintiff had confessed
upon the witDess-stand in the action that
she never had been, in fact, married to
Gard and that the marriage certificate was
a forgery and was false and bogus and
was so informed by plaintiff herein"
The Gard episode is dwelt upon at
length and Mr.. Russell credits tho woman
who became his wife with very ingenious
defense. The defendant declares that he
was deceived in the character of the
woman whom he married and that her
representations were untrue. He declares
that bis wife was the mistress of Charles
Lord prior to his marriage TO her. Russell
says that on March l. 1894, he discovered
the true character of his wife and ceased
to live with her from that date.
He declared that prior to the marriage
she deceived him as to her family.
For third and separate cross-complaInt
Russell accuses his wife Of extreme cruelty
of off h ruf+b
and Threatening language.
While at Camp Taylor, in June, 1892,
Russell says his wife IN the presence of
his friends said: Yes. these married men
are very well and fair in company, but
many are like some married men know"
with meaning look at defendant, "per-
feet devils at home"
Mrs. Russell is accused of undue fond