The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1894-04-06
MARRIAGE \ FAILURE.
Positive Evidence From Six
Young Hearts That it is

| Three divorce suits were nl0d
this week to come up for hearing
at the next term Of the circuit
court which convenes Monday the
9th, inst. Lilly L. Sargent is the
plaintiff in one and alleges that
the defendant, George Sargent,
and she were married in Polk
county November 9th, 1890.
That the defendant without cause
contracted the habit of gross and
habitual drunkenness and that his
habits as drunkard has become
so confirmed that plaintiff can no
longer live with him in comfort or
safety, and since last June she
has been compelleds to support
herself by her own labor as
housekeeper in private family.
Since the separation she has re-
ceived no support from the de-
iendant and asks for a decree of
divorce and also that her name be
changed to Lilly L. Tharp, her
maiden name.
| In May, 1891, in Polk county,
Oregon. Miss Lulu Miller and w.
/ III. Whitaker were united in the
holy bonds of matrimony. The
wife is now the plaintiff to suit
for divorce and alleges that soon
after their marriage the defend
ant commenced course Of Cruel
and inhuman treatment toward
her so as to render her life burden
some. The defendant was lazy
| and shiftless and did nothing for
! the support Of plaintiff. That he
took the money earned by the
plaintiff and used it for purposes
unknown and at different times
| visited Portland and while there
| attended various places OF amuse-
! ment, and took with .him, women
to the plaintiff unknown. She
has been III delicate health most
of the the time since their mar
riage and unable to do the work
she was compelled to do. That
often their table was not supplied
with the wholesome necessities of
life and during the last year most
of the provisions were supplied by
herself. She furthers.alleges that
defendant accused her with hav-
ing committed adultery with one
Hart, which defendant knew was
false. That at one time the de-
fendant admitted having been in.
innate before his marriage with
one Emma Colett. That she fire.
quented the defendants home and
plaintiff objected to her visits and
requested defendant to desist as
sociating with her but ihe angrily
stated to plaintiff that he would
do as he wished, and Eif plaintiff
was not satisfied with it she could
pack up her things and lgo home
to her people, which she did and
has since lived separate and apart
from the defendant. Wherefore
she asks that the bonds of matri-
mony be dissolved, and that her
name be changed to Lulu M.
Miller.
Il. d. Horner,,: has begun suit
against his wife for divorce: and
alleges that they were married in
Umatilla county during the month
ofsApril, 1883; that he has treated
the defendant with kindness sand
affection but soon after their mar
riage without any cause she ceased
to love him and treated him cruelty
and inhumanly; she was sullen
and morose, frequently refusing to
speak or talk with plaintiff except
in fits of anger, when she would
curse him and call him many Of
fensive, vile and abusive names.
She would speak to him when
out In company in veryainsulting
and humiliating manner, and
would frequently slap him in the
face. During the month of March
1892, she was in the habit of going
out boatriding with a young man
named W. E. Abbit, and would
stay out late and when plaintiff
would demonstrate with her she
would tell him that it was none of
his dam business; that she would
stay out as long as she pleased.
She was also in the habit Of going
out at night and meeting divers
young men, whose names are not
unknown, and would stay out un.
til eleven or twelve O'Clock,
She had struck plaintiff with
knives, inficting painful wounds
and her constant, cruel and in
human treatment has rendered
his life unbearable, and it is i'm
possible for them to live together
longer as man and wife. The de-
fendant sets up general denial to
plaintiffs allegations and asks for
a decree against plaintiff and that
she be permitted to resume her
maiden name, Hattie A, Stans-
bury.