The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1919-04-19
JONATHAN WEST
Is GIVEN LIMITED
DIVORCE DECREE
Both He and His Wife Pro-
tected in Their Prop
perty Rights.
CASE LIKELY TO GO UP
Suit Decided Today Was
Second Action Involv-
ing This Couple.

The notorious West case was decid-
ID today. A partial divorce was
yranted in which Jonathan ]. West is
given divorce from bed and board.
TIE court decided that Mrs. Jonathan
West wilfully deserted her husband
and continued in desertion up to tirle
Of suit. The costs are to be paid by
the plaintiff. Jonathan ]. West. 1t is
further adjudged that both plaintiff
and defendant be protected as to
their property rights. Both parties
ire to hold what belongs to them, free
from claim OF any kind.
Both the defend mt and her attor-
neys object to the decvree. 1t is like
ly the case will be taken to a higher
court. Attorney Harry Shaw repre-
sented West, vile Attorneys NJ. w.
Ogden, L. G. Mussrave and Judge
Franz: Cox represented the defendant,
Mrs. West.
An unusual story In the Jonathan
]. West case runs as-follows: Bertha
Niizum wt.sn 20 years of age married
Jonathan ]. West, aged II. A mar
riage contrRct was signed at tho time
which gave Mrs. West $500 cash and
guaranteed $1,000 to her at his
death. The $500 was paid and the
$1,000 still holds good. Though the
y, tod sfON Tfn fst,
the evidence shows en- record that out
of that time Mrs. West lived in the
house with her husband two years
and one half. The records also snow
that she actually lived with him eight
months. During the time she remain
c:i at his home, either her sister or
brt Ger lived there also. West is said
to have good farm with pInty of
fruit, vegetables and everything
growing which one could need. He
has quite reputation for making ex-
cellent wine from his grapes. He
owns about 200 acres Of land,
The suit which was decided yester-
day Is the second suit which West has
brought against his wife. The first
was brought in 1913, with Allison S.
Fleming as attorney. The same
charge, desertion, was brought. A
few DAYS before the decree for di-
vorce was entered in that case. it Gas
brought to the attention of the court
that Mrs. West had gbne back to her
husband and was living with him at
that time. 1t was supposed by attor-
neys that she went back for the SIM
Die reason that it was only in this
manner that she could prevent the
divorce. The suit was dismissed at
Vests cost.
In. July, 1918. the second suit was
brought with the charge desertion.
! At this time Mrs. West filed an an
swer in cross bill asking that sne
5 get divorce but that West be denied
one. It was the opinion Of the court,
handed down up the bill. the answer
and the cross bill of the defendant
and the. general replication to said
answer and upon the evidence taken,
that the plaintiff, Jonathan j. West,
should have q divorce. 1t was the
opinion OF the court that Mrs. West
was not justified in deseftion and that
her eyider-o that she tried to bring
about a reconciliation since the time
she left her husband was not in good
faith. 80,
"A separate allowance OF about $500
may be granted Bertha West. but this
money is not allowance under the
above divorce but is back allowance
which Mrs. West is trying to collect.
The court has not yet decided upon
this matter.