The San Francisco call., 1896-12-29
TOLD THE WOE
OF A YOUNG WIFE
Andrew Schuller Is Ac-
cused of Cruelty and
Fraud.
Twice Stabbed the Woman He
Had Promised to Cherish
and Protect.
Charles Maxon, a Son-in.Law OF
Schiller, Implicated in an AL.
legged Conspiracy.

Mrs. Eugene Schuller. by her attorney,
Henry II. Davis, yesterday flied a COM
plant against her husband, Andrew
Schuller. which puts HIM in anything but
favorable light; and Charles c. Maxon,
son-in-law of Schuller, is also brought in
for shars of her condemnation.
Mrs. Schuller sets forth that she and
Andrew SchulIer were married in 1894,
and that they still bear the relationship
of husband and wife, though their life as
such has been far from happy. She says
that on the 25ih OF last Nuvem Der he
abandoned and deserted her without cause
or provocation and continues to live sepa.
rate from her.
The complaint alleges that almost daily
from the time of their marriage SchulIer
treated her in a cruel and inhuman man.
ner; that he violently assaulted her and
applied TO her vile and vulgar names and
epithets too vile to be mention ed; that
be frequently struck her on the head and
face with his fist. kicked her, threw her
about, iniuri1g her in person and general
health
Particularizing her grievances, Mrs.
Schuller says that in March, 1895, her
husband stabbed her in the neck with a
knife, intending to kill her, and the loss
OF blood caused by the wound made her
weak and i'll for several months; that on
the 10Th OF last month, which by the way
was the day before THANKSGIVING day, he
again abused and assaulted he and again
stabbed her with knife, cutting her in
the forehead, the wound therefrom re-
sulting leaving a scar on her face for
many days.
Touching her husbands disposition
Mrs. Schuller says that he has violent
temper and that it is dangerous for her to
live with him; that he is greatly influ-
enced in his cruel and inhuman conduct
toward her by the persuasions of his
daughter, Mabel Cool. who on one occ..-
sion in November, 1896, said to the de-
fendant that her only hope and desire
was that he would kill this plaintiff, Mrs.
Schuller.
If Mrs. Schuller had the means that
properly belong to her she suggests she
would not so bitterly com plain. but she
AYERS that in addition torefusing to furnish
the necessaries of life SchulIer ca ioled from
her by divers means and misrepresenta-
tlons since their marriage certain m moneys
belonging to her before their marriage.
which was her own separate property;
that he gave her his notes for the money.
but has failed 10 repay the same; and that
now, having taken her property, he has
abandoned her and has failed to provide
for her; that frequently she has gone
without meals for two days at a time.
thereby making her i'll and greatly i'm
pairing her health; that she is wholly
without means and is dependent on the
charity of friends.
1t Is well known that every woman has
right TO something to wear, yet Mrs,
Schuller declares that her husband since
their marriage has never purchased for
her any clothing or wearing apparel of
any kind, although he has and at all
times since their marriage has possessed
the means and ability to do so.
On this point Mrs. SchulIer continues
by saying that Schuller has stated to her
on numerous occasions that he has money.
but that he has fixed it with Charles G.
Maxon, his son-in-Iaw, for the purpose of
preventing any court or lawyer from COM
the money which be has fraudulentIy
taken from her.
SCHUYLER seems to have chosen the day
before Than nksgiving as the occasion for
enolng his marital uisagreements, for she
alleges that on said day, on returning to
the apartments occupied by them at the
Befesford House in this City, she found
him about to vacate the rooms with his
personal effects, leaving her to face the
landladv, to whom he owed $50 for their
board and lodging; whereupon she re-
monstrated with him for in such a sur
reptltlous manner leaving the premises.
carrying with him his personal belongings.
leaving the trunks and wearing apparel OF
this plaintiff subject TO the lien OF the
landlady for the board bill.
Dlsregarding her appeal Schuller per-