The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-07-27

| treme cruelty, Holmes x Haynlaker are
her attorneys.
! Mrs Casey after admitting that part oil
| her husbands petition which states that
| they were married in 1879 says that she
| brought 1895 in cash with her when she
married Mr. Casey; that her mother
brought 500 in cash when she came to
| live with them, and that for some time
| she has supported herself and family by
| selling vegetables. butter and milk aud by
| sewing, and that Mr.. Casey has taken all
| from her but one cow. She then continues:
''The defendant further says that in
! July. 1893. the plaintiff gave her SIS with
| which To supply herself with clothes. and
| So since that time and one pair of shoes,
| but that during the whole of the last eigh-
| teen months, the above is all the money or
merchandise that the plaintiff has Turn
| ished 20 this defendant Tor her use.
! That "a short while ago the plaintiff took
! one of her COWS aud turned it over IL sat
! isfaction OF the grocer's bill That 10 the
! knowledge of this defendant the plaintiff
! has wi hin be said eighteen months last
| past, used or had the use OF 5000 and this
| defendant does not believe tGat he has
/ sp-nt 500 OF the same upon his own home,
neglecting he table and clothing of his
whole family but that all the remain
der of the SAID sum has been spent upon
| one tloy Stanley as hereafter set out.
The defendant saws that she has, during
| her marriage Aforesaid. made her own
| clothes and has worked as hard as anyone
| could and has in reality broken down her
! health trying TO keep up the home, scarce
! ly ever leaving the same.
The defendant says that in April, 1895.
! the plaintf employed he id Floy Stan
lep 10 b. in his offics, that he nred-d no
help and that he had two rooms IN his
Office that the windows of the back room
OF the said office were stained so nat II
was impossible for one TO see through
them. That nearly all of the furniture #
the said office was In the back
room where the plaintiff had bell
put upon the front door Of his
Office which made a loud noise upon the
entrance of anyone; that 10y this device
and others the plaintiff and the said Floy
| Stanley were enabled to pass heir time TO-
| gether during the day, and have passed
their time alone together during the time
since the said month of April. 1888, in
secrecy and without the observation of
anyone.
The defendant SAYS that in May, 1898. in
the course of a conversation bei Wteu the
said plaintiff and the said defendant the
plaintiff said he had the said EiOy Stanley
in his power and that she had then said to
him that she hoped most earnestly that he
would not ruin the girl, aud That IN reply
he had said that he wondered what in the
HI she was talking about, did she sup
pose that he would allow her TO be ruined
by somebody else. The defendant says
that from that time further until the time
OF the leaving of this defendant by the
plaintiff, to-wit: the 10th of July, lS94-
he plaintiff always accompanied the said
Fluy Stanley to the otiics from her home,
which is only two blocks from the home
of the said plaintiff, and accompanied her
lack in tie afternoon to her home, and
usually took her in the buggy with him 10
aud fro.
Il was his habit during that time to ar
rive at home at about O'Clock In the
evening after having escorted the said
Floy Stan ey home aud eat his supper ani
then proceed t. the hone OF the said tloy
Stanley and there remain until about an
average OF i o'clock, midnight At times
the Plaintiff would not come home until
early in the morning and sometimes be
would return al a. IN. but that H. had
not spent single evening at home since
TWO W eks before the election in he spring
of last year. That the plaintiff has heeu
seen to 20 To the home OF the said tIoy
> anley with one suit on aud come out
afterward, with another on. That plant
if and said Floy Stanley have repeatedly
been seen during said time swinging IN a
hammock together at her home with their
arms around each other.
And defendant further says that she has
been and Is quite fond Of going to the the
alter and UIner places Of amusement but
that it appears that the plaintiff who we'll
knew that, WAS unwilling to take her TO
any of Uhos. places of amusement; that in
the month of September, 1898, the defend
ant was examining the clothes of the
plaintiff and found in Que of the pockets
conclusive proof that he had accompanied
( FIoy Stanley TO the theater on two occa-
| sions and that her anger WAS provoked at
| the time TO such an extent that upon
( speaking to him about n and seeing the
/ indifference that he showed on che subject
| she could not control herself ana slapped
/ him in the face with her hand.
| The defendant further says that in the
month OF May. 1894, the Plaintiff with the
purpose of vllifyIng aud delamlug the
| character of this defendant told Daisy
| Guyer, who at that time was helping this
| defendant in the house, that the defend
ant had been for four years prior 10 her
! marriage with this plaintiff the mistress
I of the plaintiff, at the accusation was
wholly false, and that the Plaintiff well
J knew ut the time he said II, that he was
falsely attempting 10 blackeu reputation.
! Tn. sand Daisy Guyer told this defendant
/ what the plaintiff had said. auH when this
} defendant accused tue plaintiff of having
/ said this falsely and mallcIoUsly the
plaintiff did not deny having said 1t, and
! caused tits defendant TO become 80 excited
apd eurased at this attack upon ner honor
that she seized small stick and struck
! the plaintiff.
This defendant saws that the constant
! dread of an open expose 81 whaJ was going
on. the fact Uhag her nerves ia the first
/ place were not strong from oveTwork, has
/ caused her 10 become irritable ana eX.
/ cltabla. that she tried in every way pos
/ 81 - al gNf Il n ina L
b,tveau the plaintiff aud the SAM FI0y
/ Stanley, that her fears in that dlrecli ion,
/ ACCOMPANIED with the guilty conscience
of the plaintiff CAUSED him L
rail and sweA at her upon any and every
occasion aud that By his means AID by
threatening her a. II she were not 4
human being; always seeking TO find fault
wi h her though there was no OCCASION, ne
tried 10 make her life so uubearable that
She would be compelled 10 apply for 8
divorce.
F'he defendant farther says that prior to
the plaintiffs lutatuatIon or Floy Stanley
| he had not gran Ell her any privileges OF
| going by herself any where but that h'
was uureasouably Jealous aud exacJing Of
her company buJ that since he has uot
| y ared her in any way as II she had ans
claims upon him but as Aforesaid ha:
turueG al! his attention and means 10 10.
cultivation OF his relation with the sal,
| Ftuy stanley, aud mas taken her 10 the
| fbester and 20 various places OF amuse
p,1ut lust as If she were his wife and Ell
tltled 90 this show or attention Instead O.
| this defendant.
| This defendant further says that she has
! been IN to the time that his alsci!oa'
were ahsolui civ esJrsnged from usr mos
warmly ait ,cned to the plaintiff, that sh'
ha> done every thing that wife cou.'
have been expected TO DO aud more an
that uD 70 within the last I'VE
or three months sue believes that Z