The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-04-30
FIVE DIVORCES
ARE HANDED DOWN
Those That Were Set Free by Judge II.
NJ. Edwards Yesterday.
THE CASE or THE ROTHERMELS
IL Is the Second Time That They
Have Been Granted a Divorce--Af-
ter the First Legal Parting the Cou-
pie Remarried--Mrs. Hecrman's
Married Her Husband for Money,
and When She Found That lie Had
None, She Left Him.

Five more divorces were granted yes
terday and eight new cases handed
up. All of yesterdays DEGREES were
made by Judge Edwards.
One of them was the Rothermel di-
vorce which is remarkable for the rea-
son that it is the second time the par
ties have been divorced. Carrie E.
Rothermel is the lbelant and Edwin
ID. Rothermel, the respondent. Both
reside in this city. Mrs. ROthermeIs
present residence being 112 Franklin
avenue. They were first married eigh-
teen years ago and lived together for
nearly twelve years, when the hus-
bands alleged cruelty caused Mrs.
Rothermel to procure a divorce.
He professed repentance and promis-
ed to reform and in July, 1890 out of
consideration of their two children she
consented to remarry him. In Octo-
ber, 1S93 she again was compelled to
leave him on account of his alleged
cruelty and again she instituted pro-
ceedings for divorce, which eliminated
in the decree Of yesterday. Her at
torney was John L. Scragg. One of the
allegations made against the husband
was that he called his wife to the
window one day and after reminding
her that he had refused to give her
money to buy food and clothing, point
ed out a woman going down the street
and said Sec that cape she has on?
Well that's the reason you couldn't t
get any money"
HEERMAN'S CASE.
Emil Herman, of 712 Schnell's place,
was divorced from Amelia Herman,
on the grounds of desertiOn. They
were married in Germany October 10,
1893, and came direct to this city. Five
months after their wedding she told
him that she would leave him. She
thought he had money and frankly
told him that she married him solely
on that supposition. She left as she
said she would and he has never heard
from her since. John F.. Murphy was
attorney for the libellant.
Margaret Erhardt, of 619 Eynon
! street, secured divorce also on the
ground of desertion. She married Au-
gust Erhardt April 27, 1898, and year,
minus two days later he left her be-
| cause she refused to sign over her
property to him. Her attorney was
r. j. Bourke.
d. G. Romich, of Carbondale, who
was divorced from Eliza Jane Romich,
! is another grass widower. The mar
riage took place in Wilkes-Barre July
o. 1885. This he had to prove orally,
as the wife took the marriage certifi-
cate with her when she fed and
Squire Rooney, who performed the
ceremony, lost his records in the cy-
clone After the desertion took place
in 1894, Romich moved from Wilkes
Barre to this county settling in Car
bondale. His attorney was II. c. But
| Ter.
NO EXPLANATION GIVEN.
Simple, unexplainable desertion was
! the ground on which Grace NJ. Jones
| of Dunmore, succeeded in securing
separation from William j. Jones. They
| were married in Phillipsburg, n. j.
October /, 1888, and the desertion took
place in Dunmore November /, 1894
| T.. c. Newcomb was Mrs. Jones' attor-
ney.
In none of the cases was there any
appearance on the part of the re-
spondents.
The following are the eight new
cases handed up yesterday: Mary
| Tracey against Adam Tracey, Sarah
Scott against Michael Scott, John Mar.
tin, jr, against Mary Wirth, John w
Bullock, jr., against Abbie T.. Bullock
Sarah Hill against Richard Hill, Gallo
line Jones against Albert l.. Jones
Austin Mufflye against Lottie e. Muf.
fey, Annie f. Miller against Charles
L. Miller