The Minneapolis journal., 1901-01-28
DIVORCES NOT 50 EASY
COURTS DISCOURAGE THE HABIT
Out of Fifty-nfne Applicants Only
Eighteen Succeeded In Get
ting Free.

Only eighteen of the principals in the
nifty nine default divorce cases in the jan
uary term calendar read their fortunes
correctly when they began their actions.
The term was surprise to those who
thought that to procure a divorce in this
county was a simple proposition.
The whole bunch of decisions were filed
Saturday. The most remarkable story
of all was the one told in the
trial Of the suit of Laura H. Tinney
against Oscar D. Tinney, wherein a de-
cree Of divorce was demanded ON the
ground Of marital infdelity
On the stand the woman told of her
wedding tour to Buffalo and New York by
way of the great lakes. 1t might have been
very pleasant trip, but for a woman who
haunted the bridal pair, securing berths
in the same sleepers, the adjoining state
rooms on the steamers, the adjoining
rooms at the hotel, taking the same street
cars and otherwise keeping close.
Judge McGee says fatty that the
evidence OF collusion Is stamped on every
phase of the case. He undertook to have
the parties indicted for adultery, but the
wife refused to prosecute.
In the case Of Mathilda Lidborg against
John Lidborg the court finds the testimony
regarding the alleged cruelty rather vague
and the motion is denied. A similar dis
position is made of the case Of Charles
Law against Lenna Law. A memorandum
in the case of Marie A. Kelly against
George F. Kelly ventures to say that the
court owes it to itself to rigidly enforce
the very lax provision of the present di-
vorce laws, so that when people under
stand that marriage cannot be undone ex-
cept for a serious cause there would be
less Fourth of July runaway marriages.
William A. Frazer sought to chastise
his stepson, and it led to trouble with Mrs.
Emma E. Frazer, but the court finds no
cruel acts and refuses a separation. VIII
lis A. Fisher left home when Lillian M.
told him he could go if he could not buy
better furniture. Judge McGee does not
find that desertion was proved. The case
of Alvero D. Poole against Laura j.
Poole was dismissed.
Four other cases are dismissed for vari-
GUS reasons as follows:
Mabel c. Beckwith against Charles w. Beck
with, Martin Fazekos against Threzia Faze-
kos, Viola A. Finch against Peter s. Finch,
Charles A. Gibbs against Ida E. Gibbs, Perry
w. Hall against Maize A. Hall, Mart o. Han
son against Johanna A. Hanson, Edward
Kastner against Mamie Kastner, Francis R.
Leroux against Marie S. A. Leroux, Sarah
Montgomery against John r. Montgomery
Amanda Nichol against John D. Nichol. Oil.
yer A. Readleld against Alice NJ Readneld
ards William Herbert Walker against Lydia
Walker, Annie l.. Zimmerman against Max
Zimmerman.
Eighteen Divorces Granted.
The eighteen divorces granted will be
found in the following list:
Charles 3. Bird against Fanny D. Bird, for
desertion; Josephine Clack against James H.
Ciack, for desertion; Mary Cook against H.
George A. Cook, for desertion; Mary Dick
against George W. Dick, for desertion; Lem
uel L. Hills against Minnie Hills, for deser-
ton; Lillien Keschnitzky against Charles
Keschnitzky, for cruelty and inhuman treat
ment; Ray Konst against H. Konst, for de-
sertion; Levi G. Lyke against Ella F. Lyke,
for desertion; Daisy Miethke against Ernest
Miethke, for cruel and inhuman treatment: :
William ]. Morawetz against Ada Morawetz.
desertion; Levine Sewell against George E.
Sewell, for desertion; Lydia Quickney against
William Quickney, for desertion; Emma F..
Smith against William A: Smith, for deser-
ton; Ida Trafton against Frank Trafton, de-
sertion; Hilda G. Swanson against Peter E.
Swanson Arne Thingstad against Matte
Thingstad, adultery; Charles Uggla against
Anna c.. Uggla, desertion Mary E. Wilbur
against Luther Wilbur, desertion.
Other cases were continued, stricken
from the calendar or reset