The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-05-04
The COURT FOOLED EN-
J Judge Hazen Has Fun With a
Dissatisfied Couple,
Who Had Asked Him to Sepa-
rate Them.
The Moore and Hughes Cases Again
Attract the Attention of the Court

The results of some Of the recent di-
vorce suits We're published to the world
today in the divorce court District
Judge Hazen developed some exceed
fngly interesting facts in giving his de-
cisions.
The judge sprang q surprising and
novel feature in ruling on the division
of property in the case of Mrs. Calma
@. Dilhn VS.. A. H. Dnfn. The parties
owned two houses. one in North To
peka and one in Parkdale.
1t seems to have been q. fOregone
conclusion in the minds of these par
ties that the court was going to give
the Parl1dale piece of property to the
woman and the North Topeka home to
the man." said Judge Hazen." So Mrs.
Dil6u introduced testimony to show
how much more valuable the North
did the same in regard to the Parkdale
house. Now I am glad that I can dis
pose of this property satisfactorily to
both sides shall give Mrs. Dilhu
the home in North Topeka. which she
considers more valuable and Mr. Dill
I'LL may have the Parkdale property
which to his mind is worth the more Of
the two"
A great deal of laughter followed
this
The evidence in this case shows
continued the judge, that these peO-
pie have not been living happily to-
gether for some time. And 1 believe
that this state of affairs was brought
about by the anxiety of the defendant
in this case to accumulate property
He was so intent upon this that the eV-
idence shows that he actually denied
his family the support he should have
given it. / do not think that he did
this malicioUsly, but from his passion
for the accumulation of property
But the grounds upon which this
divorce is granted are that on different
occasions he charged his wife with be
ing untrue He admits it on the stand
The evidence shows that she had been
to a social with reputable people, whose
character was above reprOach, that
she had told him where she was going,
and he knew where she was. The ac-
cusation was without foundation, and
he had no right to make such charges
and circulate such stories in the neigh
borhood."
Judge Hazen gave the one child. a
boy to Mrs. Dilhll, stating as one rea-
son for doing so that Mr. Dilhl had
two children by a former marriage.
He ordered the husband to pay So a
month for the boys support.
The developments in the case of
Elizabeth A Moore VS.. John w Moore,
to have a decree Of divorce granted to
the husband in 1892 set aside, were not
less interesting. This is the case in
which John WilkersOn and Dave
Burdge, figured as officers
"One Of the claims in this case is
that Mrs Moore was insane at the
time the decree was rendered in 1892"
began Judge Hazen. TT is surprising
to me that such a claim should be
made when Mrs. Moore goes upon the
witness stand and relates to the small
est detail everything that happened at
that time
1T is further contended that the de
cree was procured bv fraud Mrs
Moore was given a certain sum of mon
ey by the decree to be paid in install
ments. She was represented at the
trial by Charles Curtis Afterward
she fled a motion to have the decree
set aside, it was overruled. but she con
tinued to receive the payments on her
alimony- BY doing that she was stop
ped from ever interfering in the mat
ter Her counsel agreed to the settle
mcnt, and if she had been Of unsound
mind it is likely that he would have
known it, %
The case Of Mrs. James U. Hughes