The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-07-06
DIVORCE MILL
"''''' IS SIHI GRINDING.
A Lot of Unhappy Couples
Separated Tuesday.
SHOCK INJUNCTION CASE HEARD
Court VIII Consider 1t Awhile-New Trial
Wanted on Gurski wiri-Bry Injunc.
tion Dissoived-Court
News.


News.
The present term of court Is draw
ing to a close. The last open session
for which assignment of cases had
been made was opened Tuesday MORN
ing. Judge McCarty got an early start
and opened the hopper of the divorce
mill The first case to be thrown In
was that of Rosa Blocher against AL
cid Blocher. The parties come from
Massillon. The wife was represented
by Attorney Spidel and the husband
made no defense. The wife said her
husband has abused her and struck
her and the court granted a divorce
and $50 of alimony.
LAMBORN VS. LAMBORN.
Virginia Lamborn was the next ap-
plicant for a divorce. She lives in
Alliance and was married to Edwin
Lamborn in 1893 They have a little
boy four years old. Attorney Rogers
had the case in hand for the woman
and the husband never appeared in
court. The testimony showed that the
wife had supported herself for three
years while her husband wrestled with
John Barleycorn. The court gave her
a divorce, the custody of the child and
$500 alimony.
JUROR MADE A SPEECH.
In the Gurski will case tried last week
attorneys for the widow and step
daughter have filed a motion for a new
trial. They claim the verdict Of the
jury was not in harmony with the
evidence, and allege numerous errors
on the part of the court. One thing
complained of was that the verdict was
received by the court at $50 o'clock in
the morning without the attorneys for
the defense being present, that hour
being too early for them to be out.
Again II Is asserted that Samuel H.
Rockill, who was one of the jurors,
took note during the trial and then
after they were In the jury room he
made a speech which the attorneys
think changed things in the result. For
all of these things a new trial is
asked.
EXPERT WANTS PAY.
Jacob II. Kaufman, through At
torney Lorin c. Wise, has instituted
suit against L. H. Casselman, as as
signee of the Champion Pole & Shaft
company for the collection Of $3.50. The
plaintiff says that after the assignment
he was employed to straighten up the
accounts and that he worked 46 days.
He asks IS a day for his services but
the assignee refuses to pay 1t.
WILL LOOK AT THE CREEK.
The hearing of the petition of Shock
Bros. for an injunction to stop the city
from using water from the Nimishilen
creek was finished before Judge Taylor
Monday afternoon. All of the attorneys
made a speech and then the took the
evidence and went home to cogitate
on the situation. He is coming back
on Thursday. He will then take a
stroll up along the creek and watch the
water as it burbles down over the rocks
in the creek basin and through the
flood gates at the race. Then he will
go TO the mill and listen to the whir of
the burs as they grind and by this time |
he will probably be convinced one way
or the other and a decision may be |
looked for which will settle the ques-
tion as to whether Cantonians are to |
Sontinue drinking creek water or not.
J MRS. BRY GETS $50.
In the alimony case Of Ingred Bry |
against Charles Bry the city had been |
enjoined from paying the defendant his |
wages as fireman till the claims of the |
wife were answered. The money was |
there waiting for him but he could |
not get any to meet his daily expenses. |
After trying to have the court dissolve |
the injunction unsuccessfully, a COM
promise was effected and the husband |
agreed to pay his wife $50 If she would |
allow him to draw his pay now due. 1t
was so arranged and upon request of
the wifes attorney the court dissolved |
the injunction.
HAMLIN VS. HAMLIN.
Attorneys Carlin and Lewis of AL
lance, came over with two divorce
cases, The first was that of Linus
Hamln against Mary Hamlin. The tes-
timony showed that the wife had been
absent from her home for over three
years and the court granted divorce
to the husband on this ground. The
court ordered the husband to pay the
defendant 800 alimony but afterward
reconsidered 1t and decided that the
alimony need not be paid.
HUSBAND CAME TO LOOK ON.
The next case was that of Emma
Massey against Mason Massey. The
pair had married in 1896 but did not get
along well. The wife testified that her
husband had not supported her and had
abandoned her the last time when she
had a child on her hands. The hus-
band made no defense but he had come
over from Alliance just to see how the
case would CO.. The court asked the
woman where her husband was and she
pointed him out back in the court room.
Judge McCarty asked the young man
what he said about the case. II have
nothing to say" replied the defendant.
well you come up here and will ask
you something" said the court and
Massey marched up. He said that ne
and his wife had not gotten along well
from the start. He was willing to try
1t again If the court said so but he did
not think it would do any good and 1t
would just be the same trouble over
again.
The the judge called the wife up and