The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-08-01

Took Him for a Husband-This He Call:
tended Marriage with Her Set Aside
lie Does not Want Her to Have Aiimony
as lie Claims He Made all His Wealth
Himself.
Some time ago, about June %. Rosa
Werner filed a rather sensational di-
vorce suit against her husband, Emil
Werner, in which she alleged cruelty on
mis- part as we'll as a6ultry and other
peculiar sins
Yesterday Emil came back al her
with an answer and cross petition filed
by his attorneys, Amidon & Conley,
that equals the former document in
sensational features in thiz that she
was married 10 another man when she
married him. The document stripped
Of titles, signature and acknowledS-
ment, reads as follows:
ANSWER.
The defendant denies each and every
allegation in plaintiffs petition, except
as hereinafter expressly admitted.
Defendant admits that IS the owner
of the property described in plaintiff 5
retition: and that said plaintiff has been
for more than one year lost post d mem
Der Of the state of Kansas, and she is
now q resident in good faith in the coun
~ of Sedgwick in said state: and that
on the last day of November, 1873. at the
county of Shawnee and state Of Kan
saS, said plaintiff was married to the
defendant
Defendant further states that he is
the owner of the following described
premises situated in Sedgwick county,
Kansas: Lots fifty-nine (59), siXty-one
C6D and siXty-three (63 on Water street
In Greiffensteins addition to the city Of
Wichita, and the following tract of land
adjacent thereto: Beginning fourteen
90 feet west Of the northwest corner OF
lot fifty-nine $50 on Water street in
GreiffenStein's sixth addition to the city
IF Wichita; running thence south sew
enty-five G5) feet; thence west fifty (50)
feet to place of beginning, and that the
came was purchased by his separate
property and individual earnings, and
that the plaintiff never paid any con-
sideratiO1 for said lands.
CROSS PETITION.
First cause of acknowledgements al
iegSs that ne is an actual bona fide resi-
dent Of the state of Kansas, and has
been for more than one last past an dc-
tual bona fide resident of the said coun-
~ ard state: and defendant states that
On the 9th day Of November. 1870 at
Knoxville, Tenn. the plaintiff whose
maiden name was then Rosa Smarsh,
married one John ]. Cole. and at the
date Of the marriage of the plaintiff 70
this defendant the plaintiff was still the
wife Of John J. Cole and the said john
J. Cole was living and the plaintiff was
not divorced from said John j. Cole at
the time of her marriage TO this defend
ant and which fa1t was unknown TO de-
PENDANT AT said time
Defendant further says that he was
Induced to enter into the marriage Tela-
ton with the plaintiff by reason Of
fraud Of the plaintiff; that the said
plaintiff represented to him that she
was a single woman and that her name
was Rosa SGn3rsh and that she had OBJ
tanned a divorce from her husband at
California, No. and that her husband s
name prior TO the time of such divorce
was Vincent Cole. when in truth and in
fact her husbands name was not Vim
cent Cole but John j. Cole, and that he
never did obtain amy divorce from her
former husband. and that he was living
at the time OF the marriage of plaintiff
70 this defendant: and her said husband
had abandoned her at California. Mo.
a few months prior TO the time Of her
marriage to this defendant.
Defendant further says that he was
not aware that plaintiff was not diverc-
ed 9t the time Of their marriage until
after plaintiff had filed her suit for di
v0rce and until about the 10th day OF
July 1895: that if the defendant had
known plaintiff was not divorced he
would not have married her; that he has
not cohabited with her nor lived with
her a shusband and wife since the dis
covery Of said fraud.
= 4
plaintiff has been guilty Of extreme
cruelty; that during al of the year Of
1895 and up until the Goth day Of June.
1895 plaintiff has constantly. without
any cause whatever. and for the pur-
pose Of annoying and making life miser-
able for the defendant. accused him Of
urQhaStity: and for the period Of about
SIX months he was confined 20 his bed
and room: and that during said period
said Plaintiff continually and falsely ac-
cused the defendant of having commit
al adUltTY and associated with I'M
chaSre women when in truth and in fact
a : plaintiff well knew he was confined
10 MS room and bed and that no female
person had visited said room: and that
on the 26th day Of June, 1895. while de
PENDANT was still sick and unable u
leave his room the plaintiff abandoned
the defendant and removed To another
place in the city Of Wichita.
Defendant further states that the
plamtiff was wholly without money
when they were married; that she con-
t~ihutai nothing in money or personal
earnings wards the accumula ton Of
the property now owned by this de
fend2nt.
Defendant further alleges that at the
.in4e Of his said marriage. with the said
plasliff that he WAS the owner in rs
own name Of the property in the city
Of Wichita that was exchanged for the
property described in plaintiffs petit
tion. which property was Of equal value
10 the property described in plaintiff :
petition and for which said property
plaintifI contributed nothing for the
purchase price Thereof.
Wherefore. Plaintiff prays that he
marriage supposed 10 have been con-
summated between plaintiff and defend
ant he set aside and held for n3uGht
ard that ne may b divorced from said
plaintiff and that he may be decreed -
he the owner Of all Of The property now
owned and held by him and also that he
NAV be iecreei - he the owner NJ the
property now IN the name Of Rosa We--
ner and that the said plaintiff be sd-
Judged and decreed u have no interest.
right 0r tile - any Of the said property
sd - such Other and equitable relief
As is just and proper