The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-03-07
HYMEN's BONDS DISSOLVED.
Dissatisfied COUPLES RESTORED
TO SINGLE FREEDOM.


Another Term of the Court Before
They Can Marry Again-Mrs. VIII
lie CLOSEUP Has at Last Obtained "A
Decree of Total Divorce From Him
She Has Charged With Violence
and Brutality.
Yesterday was divorce day in the Su-
perior Court and some two dozen dissat-
isfied couples were granted verdicts IA
vorable to their wishes and sent on their
way rejoicing
Not in all of these two dozen or more
cases were the second verdictS, that the
law requires before a decree of divorce
may be granted, obtained. In some of
them the plaintiff took the first step to-
wards securing his or her liberty, the OBJ
tanning of the second verdict and the de-
cree being thus made possible at the next
term of the court
One of the most interesting Of the cases
in which the divorce was made complete
by the decree of the court was that of
Mrs WiNie d. CLOSEUP against William b.
CLOSEUP, her husband. The story of i'll
treatment and abuse told by The fair plain
VII III net original lpetlllOH 10 tlle COIIt
was lengthy one, and Included specific
instances of cruelty, neglect and petty
meanness on the part of her husband To-
wards herself, in half a dozen different
places throughout the state.
Mrs. CLOSEUP averred that the man who
had sworn to love, cherish and protect
heS- had instead reviled, abused and al
tempted 10 dishonOr and discredit her, and
that his treatment of 'her, almost from the
time when he assumed the obi cations Of
his marriage VOWS, was of such character
as TO revolt The conscience and appali the
| humanity of every decent man. lie had
used on occa sion threats of personal VIC
| lence to induce her 10 yield 10 his tyran-
meal demands, and in this way and be-
| cause he was habtually intoxicated, had
! inspired her with fear of him from the
| influence of which she found il difficult so
| escape and that made her life wretched
| and utterly miserable. After a long course
! of such treatment, from which she had en-
| deavored 10 escape 10 seek the protection
! of her parents, CLOSEUP had intercepted
her and forced her to accompany him to
| Atlanta. There, after a brief interval,
| filled with the unha ppiness that had been
| her former portion, he finally deserted and
abandoned her, leaving her destitute and
| dependent upon the kindness of abe char
| table for means TO return to the home of
| her parents.
4 first verdict of total divorce was rem
dered in this case at the. last term of the
court, The defendant making no appear
| ance. A second verdict has now been
| granted, and by the decree of Judge T alli-
| giant the ma rriage is annulled and the
maiden name of the plaintiff, Willie ID.
| Holmes has been restored to her. She has
been represented in the matter by Mr.. An
ton p. Wright.
Second verdicts and DEGREES of total di-
vorce, accompanied in all cases by per-
mission to the parties to contract other
! alliances were also rendered and granted
| as follows: Mary Scott Collman against
! Joseph James Goldman; Marie Williams
| against Charles Williams; Matte Phinizy
against William Phinizy; Sarah Phfer
against Martin Phfer; jamie Griffin
| against Moses Griffin; F. A. Walling
against II. D. Walling; Katie Mitchell
| against Arthur Mitchell; Bridget McDer-
mott against Thomas McDermott; Lille
| Taylor against Major Taylor and Moses
jones aga INST Maggie Jones. A second YER
! Dict ard decree we're obtained in the case
| Of Mattk Bachelor against d. d. Batch
| clor the plaintiffs maiden name of Mat
| tie Ivey being restored to her by virtue
! of the verdict ard decree.
| The cases in which first verd,cts We're
| obtained at the instance of the plaintiffs
We're not of controlling or compelling in
| terest. The most interesting, possibly, was
! the petition of Louis Manigautt for a to-
! tai divorce from his wife, Annie Mani
gault, to whom it appears he was married
| on Long Island, in 1884. The plea for di-
vorce is based on the alleged desertion of
! the plaintiff by the defendant, said II
/ have begun in 1889 and to have continued
! since that time A first verdict Of total di-
Vorce was granted in this case.
First verdicts of total divorce We're also
! granted in the following cases: Laura h.
Newton against Robert Newton; r. G.
| Munroe against Augustus Monroe; Caleb
Reed tgainst Annie Reed; Mary Foye
against Scott Foye; Catherine Dixon
against John Dixon; Celeste X. Smith
against c. W. Smith; Julia Black against
Toney Black; Samuel jenkins agains4 Su-
| san jenkins; Bessie Il. jenkins against
! Daniel L. Jenkins; Jessie f. Davies
against Horace G.. Davies, and Rosa Muir
ray against John T. Murray
Two cases were dismissed those of Bob
bic f. Whitaker against w. II. Whitaker
and Hannah Levin against Nathan Levin.
| In these cases The parties evidently found
| it possible to reconcile their differences
| i'll some manner short of the absolute d.
vorce that was at first sought. Hymen
torch, soon to have been extiuguished by
| the hand of the law, has furnished evil
dence of renewed life and lighted the par
lies on their way to renewed martial fe-
licity
There was no contest in any of the cases
that were tried yesterday, Ehe defend
ants in all of them. apparently, being
either quite as anxious as the plaintiffs
| that a divorce should be granted or else
| impre ssed with the conviction that che
! grounds Of complaint were just and correct
and entitled the complaining parties to
! the freedom that they sought.
The divorce docket is by no means clear
ed. The cases in which there are con-
| tests have been assigned for certain DAYS
| during the term and in other divorce
cases, in which there is q likelihood of
| contest, the verdicts win be granted by
juries at odd moments between the trial
of other cases.