The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-03-25
HAS THREE HUSBANDS
THE CHARGES EPHRAIM KROOT
MAKES AGAINST HIS WIFE.
Also Says She Has Various Aliases
Rocker Change of Venue
Rioters Cases.

Ephraim Kroot. a Hebrew grocer at No. 2S2
South Illinois street. has invoked the aid of
the Superior Court to assist him in extricat-
ing himself from a most extraordinary
matrimonial middle. He brought suit yes
terday to have a marriage contract, entered
into Sept. 4. 1894. with Sarah Nassau, de-
clared void on the ground that ne was the
victim OF Misrepresentation and fraud.
Kroot charges that the woman has four
or five different aliases. Sarah Trim"
Sarah Notsohl' and Sarah Phillips are
some Of the names by which she has been
known. The plaintiff married her under the
name of Sarah Nassau" He met the wom-
an a short time after the death Of his wife.
He had several small children who required
a mothers care, and he cultivated the ac-
quaintance of the defendant. She assured
him, he says, that there was no obstacle to
their union, and promised, if he would
marry her, to look after the interests of his
little ones and make him a faithful wife.
Since his marriage, the plaintiff AYERS, he
has found out that the woman has two liv-
ing husbands besides himself. AT the time
of her marriage to him, he says, the defend
ant was the legal wife of a man named
Trinz, to whom she was married in Austria
fifteen years ago. She was the mother of
two children, Of whose existence the plaintiff
says he had no knowledge. She separated
lea, but the plaintiff says the couple were
never divorced except by a Jewish
which is not recognized by the State laws.
Trinz, it is said, is living in Chicago. The
complaint charges that the defendant, after
leaving Trinz, made another marriage Con-
tract in the city@of Detroit with one Phillips,
but the couple separated after a short time:
Phillips is yet living, and is a resident OF
Detroit. The plaintiff shows that he had no
knowledge of these facts until a few weeks
he could live with her no longer, as she was
not his wife. He says she has stubbornly re-
fused to leave his house, and has become
vulgar and abusive in her conduct toward
him. He alleges that she has threatened TO
take his life, has beaten and maltreated his
children. and Threatened TO kill his youngest
a sHa T shat she kn defendant ane d d1imRsa' into shanSss
and has made numerous attempts to steal
the plaintiffs money. Kroot has to watch
her constantly, he alleges, TO- prevent her
from making way with his savings. To pre-
vent the defendant from corrupting or in
jur1ng his children and from taking his prop
erty. he is compelled TO have some one keep
fears hat when the woman learns of the
action in the court against her, she will re-
sort to further acts OF violence, and 1t is
asked that a restraining order be at once
issued to keep her away from the PLAINTIFFS
home.
A Laborer Worthy Of His Hire.
Judgment was given Theodore Heinman
against Charles, Mock for s4 in Justice Of
the Peace Johnston's court yeste day. Mock
owns a seven-acre garden farm near town,
where he lives with his wife and three small
children. Mock told the court that he met
Helnman last fall. and engaged him to do
the the h ~ehore and aH 5Ssa,1 the HpIo oes f hep wi q Sor ier
two cows, a pair of pigs and some poultry.
Heinman's duty was 10 care for the stock.
He also cut UP some fodder. dug potatoes
and sawed some stove wood. He alleged that
Mock had agreed TO pay him a reasonable
sum for his labor, beside his board. Hdn-
man considered that his services were worth
$40 a month. and he brought suit TO recover
that amount. The court heard several farm
ers testify as tosrthe value OF the services
performed by Heinman. Justice Johnston de-
cided that HeipmanA was entitled to 50 a
month, and gave him a Judgment Tor that
amount, less the price OF an cd coat ana a
cap given him by Mock and SIS in money