The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-04-03
"A $4,000 DAMAGE SUIT
HORATIO GARNER AND WIFE SUED
BY THEIR sON-IN-LAw.
William Hendricks Makes Big De-
mands for the Alienation of His
Wife's Affections.

William Hendricks yesterday filed suit
against Horatio Garner and wife. parents
of Mrs. HENDRICKS, and Annie S. Woollen.
aunt of Mrs. Hendricks. for $4,000 damages.
The charge is alienation of the affections
OF Mrs. Hendricks.
The complaint shows that the Plaintiff
was married to Miss Naomi Garner April
3, 1894, and was urged at that time lin fact,
il was one of the conditions of the consent
of the parents TO the marriage) TO make his
home with the parents of his wife as long
as they might live. Naomi was their only
daughter, and they did not want to part
with her entirely. He consented to this, he
says. on account of his great love for their
daughter, and furnished a room in their
home, where he and his wife lived.
Later, the complaint says, he was induced
TO give up the position he ,,eld, which had
a salary of 800 a month, and look after the
real estate of the defendants, which was of
large value and entirely unproductive. He
spent a large part of his time and used
much of his own money in this work. He
says his time and the money he spent in
attending to the real estate is worth 50, 0O0-
Mr.. Hendricks, he says, did not know at
any time until a petition for "a divorce was
filed BY his wife, on March 10 of this year,
Alidb III Al III HOl NONt anu lle 1911 lllil
as much as ever. AT that time he learned
that she did not, and charges that she was
induced to file the petition for divorce by
the defendants in this case, and that it was
not her voluntary action. The petition for
a divorce also asked for an order of court
restraining hendricks from gong about the
premises of the defendants, where mis- wife
WAS nVInS. The petitioner says that the
time or MS married Life has been spent in
trying to furnish his wife with all In his
power 10 make her happy. lie also says
that the defendants have Falsely and mall
ciously told his wife that he was not true
to her and was "a llbertine and mad disre-
Sarded his marriage vows.
The order of court in the divorce case was
made returnabie March 20, ana at that time
there was a partial hearing, with d con-
tinuance until two days later. AT that time
the court remarked tnat the order was not
intended to restrain the petitioner in this
case from having possession OF his personal
property, but that he must not sell or dis
pose OF any of his personal property until
the court granted HIM permission. The at
torneys for Mrs. hendricks told the petit
toners attorneys that they would see that
certain personal property was sent TO him.
When they were all in court again, TWO
days later, the personal property had not
been sent 10 him. and he again asked about
It.. He was told that part of il would be
left at a certain grocery store in the neigh
borhood of the Garner residence. at No. 922
il would be delivered to any one whom he
might send for 1t. The next day Hendricks
went to the home OF the GdrnerS with al
wagon and sent the driver into the house
with a list of the property. After some ar
gument it was turned over TO him.
on March % Mrs. Hendricks fled an am
davit and asked that her husband be cited
for contempt OF court in diSobeying the or
der of the court. She said that on March 70
he had come to her home and sent a man
in after the property, which consisted OF
the furnishings OF their room, and on being
refused possession of ii had said That he
had an order of court for it, and If IL were
not given to him he would go down town
| and get a constable and get 1t by force. III
was then turned over TO him.
In his answer TO this Hendricks filed three
of the wagon and one by his attorney, Geo.
w. Calvin. These afidavits showed that
Hendricks had had no conversation with
his wife or any member of the family, and
that no threat was made, and that IL was
not represented that he had an order OF
| court for the property. Mr.. CALVIN sald ne
had instructed Hendricks to go after the
property and send the driver into the house
TO get il, but to take nothing that was not
turned over to him by the family OF his
wife. believing all of that to be In accord
ance with the agreement between the par
ties and i'm accordance with the order OF the
court. ON this showing the contempt case
was dismissed.
Mr.. Garner is employed at VIM. Is. Bur
ford's establishment. and the complaint CT
Hendricks saws ne is worth about SlOO,OVO.
Some two years ago he was robbed one sat
urday evening while carrying the money
for the employees from the office to the rear
building. Claude st. Clair was arrested Tor
the crime and is now serving Il term III
prison for 1t.