The log cabin Democrat., 1911-03-27
HICKS CASE UP IN
 CHANCERY COURT
CONTEMPT HEARING IS ON
MRS. ROSA HICKS CHARGES J. H. HICKS DISOBEYED
 COURT ORDER.

The eharing of contempt proceed lngs preferred by Mrs. Rosa l.. Hicks against J. II. Hicks occupied the greater portion of today's session of the Faulkner chancery court, the March term of which was convened by Judge J. G. Wallace this morning. Mrs. Hicks alleges that Mir. Hicks is in contempt of the court by reason of having failed to comply with the courts order to pay her alimony and also by procuring a divorce in a Ten nessee court while the case was still pending in the Faulkner chancerv court.
 The petition filed by Mrs. Hicks re- cites that the plaintiff and defendant were married in Pulaski county De- cember l, 1903, and lived together un- til April 15, 1907, when the defend ant without cause deserted the plain tIH. The plaintiff states that defend ant during the time they lived to- gether was at times cruel and harsh n his treatment and failed to provide for her and their two children; that m August, 19O7 she filed a complaint m chancery court praying for almonv and attorneys fees, the defendant filing an answer and oss-complaint praying for a decree of divorce. In September, 1907, the petition states, decree was rendered directing the defendant to pay during the pendency of the suit $20 per month The plain tiff alleges that only S25 has ever been paid to her by the defendant and that there IS now due $795.
 The plaintiff further charges that during the pendency of this case, the defendant fraudulently and in con tempt of this court, procured a pur- ported decree of divorce from some court in Shelby county, Tennessee, and thereafter claimed to have inter- married with some woman unknown to the plaintiff, and that the defend ant never in any way apprised her of the fact that he had filed a suit for divorce in Tennessee, and he was never bona fide resident of Tennes- see.
 The defendant answered. entering a general denial to all the allegations of the plaintiff. In his answer the de- fendant states that his failure to com ply with the courts order as to ali mony was because of his financial condition, which rendered it imposs- ble for him to do so Mir. Hicks ap- peared in court in person and by his attorney, John P. Streepy of Little Rock, and answered number of questions addressed him by the court. He stated that he had been in poor health and had four other children to support and it was absolutely i'm possible for him to comply with the courts order.
 A number of other cases were dis posed of when the docket was sounded this morning. The following were continued for the term:
 Frank Loveless vs. Clara Loveless.
 Parln, Orendorff Co. vs. c. NJ. R. and s. D. Freeman.
 John H. Pitcock vs. Wade H. Pit cock
 Jesse I. Wheat ct al. vs. J. w. Sow ell.
 Catherine Olive vs. C. A. Olive.
 The following cases were dismissed: {: Lizzie Barnett vs. J. J. Nixon, cause of action having been removed by de- fendant executing deed.
 L. c. Holman vs. H. M. Rector, set tied
 J. M. Jenkins vs. J. N. Mercer, set tied
 J. H. Cox ct al. vs. R. A. Cox ct al
 A decree for plaintiff by consent was ordered in the case of American Freehold Land Mortgage Company vs. Jeffrey Graham ct al