The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1904-01-19
SENSATIONAL
ANSWER FILED IN MANN
DIVORCE CASE


by his wife, Ardell G. Mann, for di-
lvorce, has flied an answer in which he
denies the charges made against him
and in turn he charges the wife with
all sorts of indiscretions. He admits
that he at one time brought suit
against his wife for divorce and then
dismissed it, but denies that it was
filed from any wrong motive.
1t is charged that the wife persists
in receiving the attentions of one EN-
erson Albert, against his protests,
that she goes buggy riding with him,
corresponds with him and entertains
him at her home in the husbands abb
sence, and that said Albert is fur
nishing the funds to carry on the d.
vorce case
1t Is also charged that when the hus-
band and wife and their little child Wis
tied the Wooster fair in October, 1902,
that she left him with the child and
went away in buggy with Albert. and
that they were oveitakenrb by the police
of Wooster and brought back Several
other men are named as correspond
ents in this case by the husband in his
answer. Mann also denies that his
wife has a legal residence in Stark
icounty, as she claims to have in her
petition. Attorney ]. A. Jeffers repre-
sents the husband.
| DIVORCE REFUSED.
When the divorce case of Jesse KEEP
ncr against Anna NJ Kepner came up
for hearing before Judge AEI,:ler IL
disclosed rather peculiar situation.
About the only charge brought was
that of incompatibility of temper and
disposition. This is a ground for di-
vorce in Ohio, but in the Stark county
courts the case would have to be a
lstrong one in order to get a decree A
divorce has not been granted for some
years upon this ground.
The husband testified as to the fire.
qucnt qnarrelings and chickering's be-
tween himself and his wife. He lives
at Alliance, and she at Teegarden, a
little village in Columbiana county.
The defendant was present and fought
the case. She admitted that they did
not get along well together, but
claimed that he was running after
other women and she had cause for
Jealousy. There was nothing in the ev-
idence to support the wife's statement
and 1t appears to be simply jealous
Idelusion. At the conclusion of the
hearing divorce was refused, and as
the two will not live together Judge
Harter will fix the amount of alimony
the husband must pay for her support.
Welty & Albaugh for plaintiff and G.
lC. Bow for defendant.
MORE TESTIMONY.
The divorce case of May Il. Kile
against Fred E. Kile of Alliance was
tried before Judge Amber Thursday
and the judge took the matter under
advisement until more testimony
could be produced showing what prop
lerty the defendant had, 80 that the ali
mony could be passed upon intelli-
gently. Attorney Miller, who had
charge OF the case. will produce wit
nesses this morning.
The charges against Kile were that
he was an habitual drunkard and treat
ed his wife cruelty. The latter charge
was hardly sustained by the evidence.
Mr.. Kile is manufacturer In that city.
| WANTS EXTRA PAY.
| George sluss has brought suit
against The Louisville Brick G. Tile
Co., on rather peculiar claim. He
was foreman or overseer at the
works where men were loading cars
and lie claims that In addition to his
regular days work he was compelled
to make a trip each evening to Louis
vile, a distance of several miles, to
make his daily report. For this extra
work he never received amy pay and
the company refused to compensate
him. He made 100 of these trips,
which ha thinka wera worth a. aoch