The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-12-13
City Falls In Its Attack
on Marburger's Claim.
IT MUST.GO TO TRIAL
Solicitor hughes Demurrer
Was Overruied--6usy Day In
Both Branches Of the
Court.

The court overruled demurrer filed
by City Solicitor Hughes in the case
Of Frank f. Marburger against the city
of Canton. Marburger had Gued to
collect $260.50 claimed to be due him
for portion of a term as secretary OF
the water works board In 1899. He
was discharged about two months be-
fore his ter mwas out.
The demurrer claimed that the board
had no right to make a contract for
such term, and it was sought to have
the action dismissed, but It must now
be tried. Lynch. Day and Day repre-
sent the plaintiff.
WICKED ALLIANCE
In the case of John Freed against
Alfretta Freed, Judge McCarty grant
ed divorce Wednesday morning, on
the ground trat the wife had been un-
true to her marriage vows and law
ished her affections on other men be-
sides her husband. William M. Roach
represented the plaintiff, and the wife
made no defense.
MASSILION WOMAN FINED.
Mary Appleman, Of Massillon, who
had been charged with keeping a
house of i'll fame. pleaded guilty be-
fore Judge Aungst Tuesday and was
fined $25 and costs, to stand committed
to the workhouse until fine and costs
were paid. Not caring to go to the
works, the woman paid the amount.
Her place was ordered abated as nui-
sance.
REFUSED A DIVORCE.
The divorce case of Rosa A. Hart
zell against William A. Hartzell, was
tried before Judge Amber Wednesday
morning. The charge was that of will
full absence, but upon the wife's own
admission the separation was rather
a mutual affair, she breaking up her
home a short time after the husband
took his departure. She did not seek
to have him come back and admitted
that she wanted him to stay away.
Judge Amber held that this was not
a case in which he could grant divorce,
as there was plainly connivance be-
tween the parties. He suggested, how
ever, that there might be divorce
granted upon the grounds of gross neg
lect and failure to provide, but this
was not urged in the petition. Attor-
ney Pinn then asked leave to amend
the petition, SO as to present this
ground. of action. The request was
complied with. The parties belong in
Massillon.
NO JURISDICTION.
The case of Mary Weidman against
Joseph Weidman came on for hearing
in court room No. before Judge Nc
Carly Wednesday morning. Attorney
William M. Roach represented the
plaintiff. She was asking for. divorce.
When the woman was placed upon the
stand. her testimony was that she had
not lived in Ohio for year. and
thereupon the judge dismissed the
case upon the ground that he had no
jurisdiction, the woman having never
gained a residence in this state as re-
quired by law. After leaving the
stand, the woman burst into tears, and
asserted that she had made mistake
in her testimony, as she had lived in
Ohio for over year before the action
was begun, but the edict of the court
had gone forth, and the case will have
to be recommended. The case came
over from Alliance.
PROBATE COURT.
In the assignment of ]. J. Clark, of
public sale of stock has been
ordered.
In the guardianship of Mamie o.
Roof, of Massillon, final action and res
ignation have been filed.
In the estate of George Teeple, of
Pike township, final account has been
filed.
In the guardianship of Volney p.
Meese, of Canton, Lucinda Meese has
been appointed guardian.