The San Francisco call., 1905-04-04
SHOW CONTEMP
FOR The COURT
Two Husbands Who Trified
With Alimony Orders Are
Committed to County Jail
GRANNIs ONE OF THEM
Member of Big Plumbing
Firm Fails to Escape Con-
sequence of His Act

sequence VI Ills ACt
j. G. Grannis, senior member of the
firm of ]. G. Grannis & Co., plumbing
supplies, 565 Mission street, was COM
mitted to Jail by Judge Hebbard yes
terday morning for contempt of court
Grannis refused to obey an order di-
recting him to pay his wife, who is su-
ing him for divorce, 500 a month.
Mrs. Grannis began her action for di-
vorce early in 1908. She asked for ali
mony pending the determination of the
case, and the court awarded her S100
month. Grannis paid the sum regular
ly until December, 1904, when he de-
cided that he had paid enough, and
quit Since then Mrs. Grannis has made
several Intellectual efforts to collect the
alimony, but without even partial sue
cess.
Yesterday morning when the case
came up Grannis' attorney sought to
placate Mrs. Grannis by offering her
$40. She scorned the offer, and then
the attorney made the proposition to
the court that Grannis, who he said
was in the building, be looked up and
given an opportunity to explain why he
could not give a. greater sum than $40
to his wife. Judge Hebbard said he
didn't want to hear any explanations,
and ordered the bailiff to find Grannis
and take him into custody. Grannis
was not to be found, however and the
bailiff returned empty handed.
POTTER ALSO COMMITTED.
George H. Potter was also committed
to jail for contempt for refusing to pay
his wife, Maud c. Potter, $50 a month
alimony pending a decision of her suit
for divorce Judge Trout made the or
der in Potter's case, and as soon as
found he will be taken to the County
JAIL there to remain in confinement un-
til he meets the obligation imposed
upon him by the court.
Rosa Michel, young and pretty,
proved to Judge Kerrigan the fact that
when she married Isidor Michel in Dem
yer late in 1903 she believed the cere-
mony was simply one evidencing their
engagement. After the ceremony she
testified that she returned TO her moth
er and was never informed by Michel
that she was his wife until one day
she went to him to break the engage
ment'' and he told her that she was al
ready his wife. Then she recalled that
at the time of the ceremony she was
not IS years of age and that she had
not obtained her mothers consent to
wed, only to become engaged. The
young woman's mother testified to the
same facts Judge Kerrigan said he
was satisfied that. the young woman
had been misled, but before entering
his order he directed counsel to submit
copies of the laws of Colorado relating
to annulment of the marriage cere
mony.
MICHEL MAKES PROTEST.
Michel who is machinist's helper
at the Union Iron works, was present
to make bitter protest against condi-
tions as he found them If his wife
wanted a divorce, he said, she should
be granted one. but the court should
compel her to return the $54 he spent
on her trousseau and the many $40
pieces he had given her mother. Judge
Kerrigan said he had nothing to do
with their financial affairs and Michel
reluctantly left the courtroom. In the
corridor he met the young woman to
whom he had been engaged and start
ed to speak TO her. In the choicest
German she grilled him for about five
minutes and when she ceased he looked
much relieved and said: well, she's
engaged to a better looking man that
makes more money than I do. / guess
she'd better have divorce. She talks
too cross"
Lionel r. Hare, mining promoter.
has been made the defendant in a suit
for divorce filed Saturday by Daisy A.
Hare. Mrs Hare charges her hus-
band with cruelty, desertion and fall
ure to provide. She says they were
married in 1895 and that he abandoned
her in September of 1908. She claims
that one night during their residence
together he came home intoxicated and
ordered her to- take off his shoes and
collar and put him to bed.
DRIVEN FROM HOME.
Her refusal so angered him that he
drove her from the house, she claims
and vented his wrath on the bric-a-
brac and furniture. On various occa-
sions, she AYERS, he seized her by the
hair and threw her down and when
this method of punishment became too
commonplace he would pinch her black
and blue He also struck her once
with a rifle, she says, and threatened
her with a razor on various occasions.
She saws he makes $3.50 a month and
she asks for permanent alimony.
Judge Graham yesterday set aside
the interlocutory decree Of divorce
heretofore granted to Lenore E. Vau-
trim in her suit against Henry H. vau-
trim. 1t was announced that the Vau-
trims had effected a reconciliation and
desired that the decree be set aside
Walter Davis petition for divorce
from Sadie Davis was denied. He
failed to establish hts case Mary
Berrert was granted a divorce from
Fred Bernert on the ground of extreme
cruelty.
Suits for divorce were filed yester-
day by Augusta M. Rogers against
James Rogers for cruelty: Sarah E.
Schales against Arthur Schales for
cruelty; Fred Rau against Mary Rau
for desertion; Mary A. Ferguson
against Alexander Ferguson for deser-
ton. Anna M. Miller against J. B. Mil
Ter for cruelty; Henry r. McClelland
against Minnie McClelland for deser-
ticn; Jennie Schaefer against Henry
Schaefer for cruelty; E. w. Wright
against Mrs. S. L. Wright for unfaith-
fulness and Fannie de Roos against
Leon de Roos for cruelty