The Savannah morning news., 1901-12-04
A BLOW TO HYMEN
THOSE HE HAD JOINED TOGETHER
VERY NEATLY PUT ASUNDER.
MANY DIVORCES GRANTED.
DIVORCE MILL IN SUPERIOR COURT
GROUND STEADILY ALL DAY.

Against Mai. Dunham -Beauty IN
the Persons of WronGed Plain
tiffs Lends Attrnctiveness TO Grim
Court ROom-The Names of Those
Who Were plaintiffs and Defen nd
vOrce Day in Court.
The divorce mill ground merrily and
steadily and we'll in the Superior Court
yesterday. Couples, who in the morn
ing were chafing in unwelcome mar
riage bonds, before the day was half
over, were as free as air and as happy
possibly, as its DEMONS.
All the cases in which there was no
contest had been assigned for trial.
and they disappeared from the docket
of the court with celebrity that would
have made the shades of judges Of
the olden time rub the mould of the
grave from their eyes, and strive to
understand what it was all about In
the jury box twelve men sat solemnly
reading newspapers between cases, but
never leaving their seats.
An inVariable rule of procedure gov
erned each case. The plaintiff would
be called to the stand. and at the in
stance of counsel, would relate to the
court and the more or less interested
and attentive jury, the tale of his or
her misfortunes and the various acts
of cruelty, oppression and wrong that
had been suffered at the hands, or
through the conduct of the erring con-
sort. This done counsel would blandly
announce:
This makes the case, your honor
and Judge Seabrook would deliver a
three-quarter minute charge to the
jury, the eye of each juryman would
| seek those of his neighbors, and then
the foreman would climb off his seat
| and sign the verdict that had been
prepared. If it CHANGED to be a second
| verdict the decree of the court would
| follow as a matter of course.
First in interest and Importance of
the divorce trials in the Superior
| Court yesterday was that of Mrs. So
| phia B. Durham against Mai Brad
| ford Durham. formerly general super
| intendent of the Plant System. The
suit was not contested and a final YER
! dict and decree of divorce, the latter
awarding her the custody of the two
| children, were granted Mrs Durham.
| The libel for total divorce was first
| filed in court just five days less than
! a year ago, and at the last term of
| the court the first verdict of divorce
| was obtained. On that occasion. as
on yesterday, neither party to the suit
| appeared in court. Maj. Durham has
| never filed an answer and Mrs. Dun
| hams evidence was presented in the
| form of interrOgatories. The pc
! uton OF Mrs. Durham recites
| the fact of her marriage to the
| defendant, in 1886, and that they lived
together until August 190o when, it
is alleged, the defendant abandoned his
wife. Since that time he has failed
and refused to support her. Two chill
| dren, Ethel, now IA years old, and
| William Bradford, a year younger, are
| the issue of the marriage. After max
| ing these formal recitals, the petition
| continues with a series of charges
against Maj. Durham, in which it is
| stated that he was abusive in manner
and language; that he was jealous and
suspicious; that he made false chargee
| against his wife's character, and that
| by intimidation he made her life mis-
cradle He is charged with having
kept three double barrelled shotguns
in his bedroom and with threatening
| the life of his wife and children and
also threatening to kill himself
| The grant of the second verdict and
| decree of divorce terminates the liti-
| gation,so far as this jurisdiction term is
| concerned. 1t will be remembered that
Maj. Durham also brought suit for di-
Vorce in Montgomery, where he now
| resides.
An amusing case was that of James
! G. Nelson against Jessie F. Nelson, in
which the husband sought a divorce
| on the ground of cruelty. Among other
| instances of her oppression he detailed
! on the stand, he told how she had on
| several occasions beaten and kicked
him and on one thrown him out of a
window. The jury agreed quickly that
| this was more than any self-respect-
! ing husband could reasonably be ex-
pected to stand, and that il demon
| strated with too much certainty that
| the wife was indeed the better half"
| A first verdict of divorce was promptly
| granted.
There was not lacking in the court
| room during the trial Of the cases the
| charm of feminine grace and beauty,
! for among the plaintiffs were two ex-
! ceedingly pretty and attractive young
| women.
One of these was Mrs. Jennie Louise
| Ward, to whom in her suit against
| Thomas A. Ward, a first verdict of di-
Vorce was granted. She declared on
the stand that the defendant was ac-
| customed to use violent and profane
| language in her presence, and that on
one occasion had threatened her life.
! He had never from the time of their
marriage contributed 10 neI support
| nor had he endeavored even to assist
| in the support o. their child. Mrs.
| Ward said she was afraid TO live with
| her husband for fear he would carry
| out his threat TO kill her and the first
| verdict was granted. on this ground
and that of non-support.
The second pretty plaintiff was Mrs.
| Jessie L. Mcmillan, who was granted
a first verdict in her suit for divorce
against Benjamin F. Mcmillan. The
parties were married on April %, 1899.
and lived together until Oct. /, 1900
on that day the defendant struck,
abused and threatened to kill his wife
and she was forced. in fear of her
life, to separate herself from him.
First Verdicts were also granted in
the case of Edith c. Carnage against
William NJ. Carnage; to Julia L. Scott
against John ]. Scott; to Nettie Beas-
ley against c. P. Beasley; to Nelson
Washington against Maria Washing
ton to Lewis Tyson against Susie Ty-
son; to Sarah Jane Jackson against
Henry Jackson; to Rosa Anderson
against Julia Anderson. and to Simeon
G. Webster against Olivia L. Webster.
Mehbbe Yunis John, the little Syr-
ian girl who was married to Nasseef
John a year or more ago. secured a
second verdict and decree of divorce
from her husband. She was but 10 when
she was married and she claimed that
the union was a result Of a contract
between her father and Nasseef John.
in which she had very little voice or
part. She never lived with her hus-
band and did not understand when
she ma t.r.iad the nle.a ming IF fba ,,,ss,.i