The record-union., 1895-08-01
MRS. WHARTON GETS her DIVORCE.
1t Was Allowed on the Ground of
Cruelty.
She Gets Some Property, $1,000 In
Money and the Custody of
the Child.

Judge Johnson yesterday granted Mrs.
Hattie Wharton a divorce from Il. F.
Wharton on the ground Of cruelty. On
the other allegations he found for the de-
fendant. In rendering his decision Judge
Johnson said:
"This case has occupied the attention
of the court a considerable length OF
time. and has been given much publicity
through the newspapers. l am sorry that
on the eve of my vacation 1 am COM
PEELED to render decision within so short
time.
There has been large number OF
witnesses called to testify in the case,
most of whom did not testify to material
facts. There was also considerable con-
f1lcting testimony. 1t is somewhat diff
cult to adjust the case, 30 much Of the
testimony being at variance with the facts.
There were three causes Of action in the
plaintiffs mplaint-adultery failure to
provide and cruel treatment.
Il will take up the allegation of failure
to provide first. 1t seems that the parties
married some six years ago and lived
ordinarily. / find that during that time
the defendant earned $4.692-S7S2 year,
or S65 a month. l must presume that
Mr. Wharton could not have lived in a
sumptuous manner or high state. 1t had
been testified to that the food furnished
by the defendant was of an agreeable
quality. While one lady testified that
brown sugar was provided for table use
instead OF white sugar, yet there are
many to-day who are only too glad to
have brown sugar. There was no exoep-
ton from those who lived with the de-
J fendant and his wife. She had plenty of
provisions and had home.
Most of her testimony is entitled to
credit, but am not favorably impressed
with all OF it. l am not exactly favorably
| impressed with her Offering the clothing
In the trunk in evidence. She represented
that she was provided with but two or
three undergarments during the entire
six years. 1t would be impossible for her
to have lived in that manner in our civil
lied State. She must have had more I'M
derwear than that; they would have been
worn out.
| Il shall give very little credence to the
defendants testimony, from the manner
in which he acted on the stand. l cannot
give much credence to Mrs. Wharton's
testimony when she said that was all tn Q
clothing she had.
II will find for the defendant.
| Il will next take up the allegation
of adultery. If Mrs. Maggie Browns
| testimony was lmpeached | would con-
slider 1t very strong testimony when she
said she saw Wharton in Mrs. Burwell' g
room at o'clock in the morning. 1t was
also testified to that she would lower the
standard of Mrs. Burwelps character.
| Mrs. Burwell denied having been in the
room at that time with Wharton. On &C
count Of her position in the case | must
take her testimony with degree OF al
lOwance. The defendant and Mrs. Bur-
well would have separated before
| O'Clock if they had in view any clandes-
| tine purpose.
''lt seems to me that last spring the de-
| PENDANT, in order TO get rid of his wife.
| shipped her. He did it to consummate a
contemplated marriage with Mrs. Bur-
well. That is the reason he had the init
mate relations with Mrs. Burwell. There
is no doubt of that from the testimony.
| Mrs. Burwell occupied her room with
her niece. l cannot find that Mrs. Bur-
| well was in the room at the time it was
! said she was with the defendant. There
| was no testimony that they were alone.
| II find for the defendant.
LAS to the allegation OF cruelty, it is
| hard to dispose OF that. While living at
Mrs. Kane's house Wharton left his wi
and child without anything to cat. Mrs.
Kane had to feed the child, whom the de-
| fendant left two or three days at time
without food. The only time defendant
would visit his wife was for the purpose
of gratifying his carnal desire. So in
| fatuated was he with his prospective new
| afnliation that he was ObliviOus to the
wants of his wife. There is no evidence
| that he struck his wife.
"Defendants cruelty is such which re-
suited nearly in criminal neglect. AL
though married to his wife. he had told
thor0 ho1
The scene at the birth of defendants tirst
child should have convinced him of the
nature of the treatment the plaintiff
| should have received in the delivery of
her child. The conduct of tue defendant
was very reprehenSible. He had a young
man to attend to his wife at the birth of
her child. Only at the last moment did
he decide to call in physician.
| Mr.. Layson (Wharton's attorrev-Will
I the court pass upon the reconciliation
The Court can find no acts of con-
donation. Plaintiff and defendant had q
sort Of cat -and-dog time. The reconcile
alton should have been fully carried out.
Cohabltatlon Is not condonation. l feel
that he has been cruel to his WIFE
Judge Johnson then figured up the
detailed earnings of Wharton and what,
property was his and what was com
munity property. Continuing, the court
said:
lone redeeming character Wharton
was possessed OF, and that is he honored
his father and mother.
concerning the decd Wharton gave
his mother. 1t is apparent he never in
tended to part with his property in the
| East l find that he made the deed to his
mother about the time his troubles COM
menced. He saw storm brewing and
induced his wife, by holding out to her
that his property was about to be attached
aud that he would be ruined. to execute
deed to him. He then decided his prom
| erty to his mother. This might not have
been done to defraud his wife.
"His mother held the deeds for some
| time. He afterward took them and
started out to hunt up the Recorder at
| midnight and attempted to have them re-
corded q. that unseemly hour. l find
that there was no consideration for the
deeds The plaintiff is entitled to
maintenance out Of the property In case
she IS granted divorce. and she is so
| entitled"
| The court then proceeded to dispose of
the property interests of the parties. The
furniture and lots in Highland Park were
awarded to Mrs. Wharton. 1t was Or
ordered that 81, 900 be taken from the rest
of the property for her support. With
that she is to pay her own costs and attOr-
ney's fees. The order granting her $3.50
| for attorneys fees was revoked. The fees
are to be a charge on the property.
The child was awarded to the custody
of Mrs. Wharton. and it was ordered that
Wharton, for the present. pay IS month
toward its support.
Clinton l.. White, Mrs. Wharton's at
| torney, says he is not satisfied with the
amount allotted to his client, and will ap.
peal the case to the Supreme Court.
-- -----
1T IS BETTER