The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-05
A LODGE WOMAN'S RIGHTS
DOES STAYING OUT LATE AT NIGHT
CONSTITUTE CRUELTYs
Judge Alien Has n Tfcklish Point to
Decide in the Marts Divorce
Cause.-The Allegations.

Judge Allen. of the Circuit Court, is
wrestling with unique problem of a do
nestle character, the solution of which
ought to be of general interest to law
yers who practice in the divorce courts.
The question the court has to decide is
whether the fact that married woman
attends lodge three times a week and once
in her matrimonial career goes to a ball
and remains out until o'clock in the
morning, can be termed cruel treatment
and is grounds for divorce. The question
is a rather important one and Judge AL
len proposes to take plenty of time in de-
Gliding it.
Evidence of this character was brought
out yesterday in the divorce case of James
Z. Marts against Katie Marts. The Martses
have been living in West Indianapolis
where Mrs. Marts keeps boarding house
Both husband and wife charge each other
with cruel treatment and both are seeking
matter who gets the divorce. Mrs. Marts
is a large, handsome woman of about
thirty-five. She appeared in court yester-
day fashionably dressed. She wore large
black hat and close-fitting, gray tailor
made gown. She was accompanied by a
number of women who were either there
as witnesses or were present as friends.
The chief allegation in Martss complaint
was that his wife remained out late at
night and did SO frequently. The evidence
showed that Mrs. Marts was away a good
deal at night but she explained this by
saying that she belonged to three lodges,
all of which met once week. Many times
the sessions are prolonged until after mid
night. 1t was further claimed that Mrs.
Marts once attended a ball given by the
Druids at Tomlinson Hall and did not get
home until O'CLOCK in the morning. The
evidence also showed that she once went
to Fairbank and spent an evening there.
but was accompanied by several women Of
high responsibility. Mrs. Marts complained
that her husband was suspicious of her.
She related an incident when she and a
young woman who lived with her
Theater After the play was over
they got a car and started home.
They discovered Marts on the rear plat
form but he did not approach them and
concluded that her husband suspected her
and followed her. Next morning he came
into the kitchen and asked how the per-
Torrance was.
"You ought to know; you were there"
said Mrs. Marts. Her husband protested
that he was not there but admitted he was
on the car which carried his wife home.
''Well. you didn't see anything that hurt
your eyes, did your his wife sarcastically
asked.
"No." replied Marts. "but there's no tell
ing what I might have seen had you not
known I was there
Judge Allen suggested to Mrs. Marts that
she and her husband might make up their
differences and live together again. He
asked II she did not think she could spend
more of her time at church and Sunday
school and learn the Golden Rule and
then forgive Marts and take him back.
She declared she could not and said she
did not care to try to live with him again.
At the conclusion of the evidence At
tcrney Harlan. counsel for Marts. said he
desired to submit some authorities on the
question of cruel treatment. Judge Allen
is not convinced that either Marts or his
wife have committed offenses that cannot
be forgiven by each other. and 1t is a oues-
ton in the mind of the court whether
either has been guilty of cruel treatment.
In San Francisco the other day a Judge
held that If man remained out until late
| at night 1t did not constitute grounds for
divorce, as that was his right if he de-
sired to exercise ii.