The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-07-24
HEAVY ALiMONY
SUSAN CRUM WANTS 81 SEQ AND
DIVORCE
Defendant in a Noted Divorce suit
Years Ago.

Susan H. Crum versus P. II. CrUm IS
the title Of suit for divorce fled yes
terday IN the district court by Amidon &
Conley. as attorneys for Mrs. Crum- Il
is stated in the petition BY Mrs. Crum
that she and the defendant were married
in this city on January .. 1898. The
plaintiff states that for some time past
she has been cruelty treated by her hus-
band, the defendant, and that he has at
various times called her improper and in
decent names, which were uncaIed for
by her conduct II is also stated in the
petition Of the plaintiff that AZ various
times the defendant had told her that If
she did not get out OF his house that he
would kick her out and that on or about
July - 1850. she was compelled to, and
did leave the property Of the defendant,
and since that time ne has refused to
support and maintain the plaintiff.
Mrs. Crum also states in her petition
that the defendant is worth about $1,000
or $4,000 and since the 18th Of July has
neglected to supply the plaintiff with any
Of the necessities Of life, and that fur
thermore, he has ordered and directed the
store-keepers from whom the plaintiff
had been purchasing goods not 70 give
her more credit on or about the 1st OF
July the defendant had published in GER
ain papers that Mrs. Crun, the plain
tiff, had left his home and that he would
not be responsible fer debts contracted
by her. Mrs. Crum states that on account
Of his neglect and orders that she. is
thrown on the charity Of her children,
with no means of support The only
property which Mrs. Crum possesses, ac-
corGing to the petition, is a small house
which rents for SO per month and small
amount Of personal property which be-
longed to her before the marriage with
Mr.. Crum.
According 10 the petition, Mr. Crum
has three children remaining at the home
in AIinneha township, the result OF a
former marriage, and that these children
continually abuse and mistreat the plain
tiff and that their abuse toward her is
tolerated and approved Of by their father,
the plaintiff.
Mrs. Crum asks in her petition to be
granted her former name, Mrs. Leach,
and in connection $500 permanent ali
mony
p. H. Crum IS q prominet farmer living
in Ninneha township and a number Of
years ago he and r. T. Leach were part
ners in their farming business. On the
9TH Of September. 1883, 4 suit for divorce
was filed in the district court Of this
county in which r T. Leach was the
plaintiff and Susan II Leach was the de-
PENDANT The plaintiff in the case c5atg-
ed the defendant with gross neglect Of
duty and that she had refused to perform
the customary household duties w'-hout
a cause for refusal The plaintiff ASKED
for the custody of the five children ana
that the defendant be not allowed any
share Of his property.
The case in due time came up IN The
district court and was hotIv contested,
SIuss & Stanley being the attorneys for
the plaintiff and Saukey. CampbsH &
Amidoa the attorneys for the defendant.
The case was tried before c. Reed, who
was Judge at that time. and verdict
vas given, allowing the plaintiff the Gus
todv Of the children bur giving Mrs.
Leach permanent aum0ny of s2.5o0 The
case was appealed 70 the supreme court
by the plaintiff and when it came I'd in
that court. the decision Of the lower court
was affirmed.
Some years after the divorce was grant
ed Mrs Leach married p. H Crum. Ter
former husbands partner. and the mar
riage eliminated in the divorce proceed
. ings Of yesterday.