The Plymouth tribune. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1901-1911, 1910-08-04
LOSES WIFE
BY TALE Of
|. FORTUNE TELLER
MONROE MAURER OF TEE
GARDEN ASKS FOR d.
VORCE FROM SPOUSE
OF 4 MONTHS.
When Married in March Had IL
Children Between Them
Palmist Says Husband
Don't Love Her.

Teegarden in the martial trou
bles of Monroe Maurer, well
to do tanner, aged 53 years, who
applied for a divorce from his
wife Mary Maurer Saturday. \
fortune teller was the direct
means of the estrangement be-
tween this couple. according to
Maurer, who says that their do
mestic relations were bllSsful,
until his wife went to North
Liberty, Ind, and consulted
fortune teller, who told her that
her husband did not love her.
Her better half could not sue
cessfully convince her otherwise,
and now they must have a di-
vorce. They were married in
March of this year. and finally
separated on July 16. Both had
been married before, the wife
hauingI nine children. and the
husband eight by their first mar
riage. In his complaint filed
Saturday, Maurer says:
After living together as man
and wife and without the slight
est friction in the family, the
wife left 10 make a short visit
to her old home, and in a few
days wrote plaintiff letter that
was cruel and injured his feel
ings greatly; not wit'hstanding
this treatmen6 on her part, plain
inf SbTowed the defendant to
South Bend and later obtained
an interview at North Liberty,
Ind. and discovered that she had
had her fortune told by an old
lady at Walkerton and had come
to believe that the plaintiff no
longer loved her. That plaintiff
induced the wife to return home
with him and for a month they
lived without any trouble be-
tween them. but on the 10th day
of July, 1910, while defendant
was working in his fields the de-
PENDANT again conceived the idea
that she did not want to live in
married life, and left plaintiff
home, taking her II year old
daughter with her, this time. but
leaving plaintiff no word. and on
the second or third day tfereaf-
ter came for her goods which
had been taken to plaintiffs
home. That plaintiff and de-
PENDANT had a talk and the only
reason that the defendant gave
for actions was that she did not
want to live with him and there
upon the plaintiff gave up her
goods.
The plaintiff insisted upon his
wife remaining, and pressed her
TO live with him as his wife, but
the defendant refused and gave
no reason and thereby plaintiff
has been deeply wounded and
Inundated, and defendants ac-
ton toward this plaintiff has
been cruel and inhuman and
since the final parting defendant
has written to plaintiff that the
parting is to be forever, and that
she will not return or sustain
any relation toward him as a
wife.
Plaintiff and defendant were
married in Marshall county, In
diana in March, 1910, and lived
together as husband and wife UP
to and until the 10th day OF July,
1910. at which time they finally
separated, and have continued to
live apart. Each had been mar
ried before the present marriage
and that the defendant was
woman 50 years of age at the
time OF marriage with nine chill
dren all grown. excepting one
daughter, II years of age, and
that plaintiff was 50 year old and
has eight grown children, one
son remaining at home, unmar-
ried.