The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1900-07-18
The Littlejohn.Nettles Gaze.

Spar'anburg. july III The decree
OF Judge Aidrich 10 the marriae G
anoullment case disposed of in cour.
here on Monday was filed 10 Clerk Of
Court mmier's Office today.
State OF South Carolina, county Of
Spartanburg-In the cour, Of com moo
pleas. Fannie V. Lit,lejobn alias F.o.
nie V. Notifies. plaintiff, seain,:
Stephen A Nettles. defendant.
On June 25, 1899. the plaintiff aud
defendant wero married, or at leas,
the marriage ceremony was performed.
This action is for the purpose of hav.
Jog said alleged marriage sdjudeed to
be null and void. Of 90 force or effect
upon the ground that tho plaintiff a..
the time tho said alleged marriage oou
traot was entered into was uon compos
meotis. and therefore incapable of co
teriog into or making q valid contract.
The plaintiff is lady Of high social
standing and the defendant is . miois
ter Much testimony has been taken,
iocladiug the parties hereto. near rela.
t,ves and pumber of eminent pby,i
cisos. The plaintiff at the time of the
ceremony and prior thereto was pou
compos mentis, ss . result Of q dis.
ease Of . violent character. In Q few
days after the marriage eerem mouy The
defendant carried the plaintiff to q
physician. who Informed him of tho
nature OF the disease and advised that
40 operation be performed 90 plaintiff.
This was done and as q result her mind
has returned aud she 10 uow CONDOS
mentis.
Plaintiff refuses to cousum mate the
marriage contract, and says that be.
cause Of her mental condition abe did
not and cannot make such contract.
Az matter Of fact I 6nd
Fi'st. That the plaintiff at the time
OF said alleged marriage contract was
uon oompos mentis.
Second. That said marrisge ooutr.et
wss not cousummsted by tho parties.
And asa matter Of law | conclude
that said alleged marriage contract
IVES and is not . valid or loyal mar.
rises.
Wherefore it 10 ordered. sdjudsed
aud deereed that tho said marriage
contract be. sod hereby 10. adjudRed TO
DO oull snd void 10 not nov binding
sod was never OF force or effect.
james Aldriob.
Presiding Judge.
July 9. 1900.
A glance ss tbs testimony shows that
there we're nine witnesses. smouR them
Dr.. j. A Watson. Of Asheville. N c.,
who about Q year ago treated her at
aud performed 40 operation
90 her for q very grave malady He
testified as to her me utal weak ness aod
attributed it to her disease
The following is the testimony of the
plaintiff, Miss Fannie V. Littlejobu or
Mrs Nettles am IS years of age.
reside 10 Cherokee County know
the defendant. Stepbeo A. Net,ies t;
have known him since January. 1899
% June 25. 1899. my health was bad
| remember going through tho oero.
mooy Of marriage With Mr. Net.les 90
Juoe 25, 1899 My mental condition
Vas very poor. This was before 40
operation was performed 90 me in
Asbeville. which operation was per.
performed July S. 1899. After tho
operation was performed l Was oct
willing to recognise the martial rsla.
lions With M. Nettles At the time
lbe marriage ceremony was performed
did DOT realize what was doing. Il
lid not come to myself fully uo.il after
Toe operation was performed After | |
,ams to myself realized that l bad
gone through The ceremony. have
done nothing which would recognise
Mr.. Ncttles ss my husband have
read the complaint and the facts stated
therein are true
Was your physical condition the
same on January 25. 1899, as it was
1t the time Dr.. Watson saw you iu
Asbeville ?
A.-Yes. Fannie V. Lit,lejohu.
Stephen A Nettles, sworn. says:
Inn the defendanr in this oase before
Inc 25,h of January. 1899. .be pI.'n.iH
became worry much reduced 10 flesh A.;
complained ct loss of sleep and several
lines her engagement With me was
broken of. which vas afterwards re.
'ewed. % the evening before the
marriage ceremony was performed she
laid she would marry me ii the oere mony
vas performed next day. which was
5uodsy. sod accordingly the ceremony
"as 40 performed Before that day was