The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1924-12-18
Judge Decides Wife Has
No Right to Allege De-
sertiOn of Husband.
HANSON CASE MONDAY
A Few Fans in Court Room
Disappointed as Charles
Hanson Case Adjourned.

The case against Charles Hanson
charged with abandonment and non
support of his wife, Martha Bloom
and his four children, was continued
this morning in the municipal cour1
to Monday afternoon at one o'clock
Hanson's case was continued at the re-
quest of the defense as his attorney
John F. Kuehnl, was busy with anoth'
err case across the road in circuit
court.
Some who had gathered in the
courtroom ostensibly to hear this
case, had to content themselves with
listening to the case of the state Va
Joseph Simo, charged with non-sup-
port of his minor children.
Simo and Hanson had this in com
mon, that they came back togethes
from the east in custody and "cuffed'
together. There was also this sim
ilarity between them, that complaints
were brought by their wives, but
there the resemblance stopped. ouc-
side of this, their cases are not COM
parable.
Susie Simo on Stand.
the court the facts in the case OF the
state VS.. Simo. District Attorney
Morris Barnett questioned Mrs. Simo;
Attorney A. L. Drury represented the
defendant, Joseph Simo.
It was shown that Mrs. Simo had
secured divorce on her complaint
filed in June, 1924, in which she al
legged desertion. Her own testimony
showed that her husband had left for
New Jersey in 1922, and that she knew
where he was and that for one year
after that she received regularly an
amount for the support of herself and
children. Thereafter she heard Il IN,
him at intervals, though not with the
same regularity. He also sent her
money at intervals, although not as
she claimed an adequate amount. and
also not sent with regularity.
How do you figure that he desert
ed your" asked the district attorney.
81 told the lawyer that he didn't
support the children. He didn't come
back, and enc letter the lawyer sent
him came back from the last address
we had had"
"Oa November %. 1924, you swore
ont 8 complaint that Simo wilfully ne
elected to provide. Had you received
nc money during the month of No
venher?"
II received sic on the 18th day of
November"
".nd the records show" said Judge
Slater, rthat you received SIG on the
9th of October Just before that"
II charged him because he didn't
pay the $55 a month alimony as he
was supposed to-" said the wife.
District Attorney Barnett: From
the testimony given by this witness,
1t appears that the divorce should be
set aside"
Judge Slater: "That cannot be done
at this proceeding"
Barnett: "No, but we will take that
up later"
81 can't make out desertion here,
said Judge Slater. "But it's in line
with most divorce actions. The wit
nesses pay little attention to the SCI
robustness of taking an OATH"
"If there has been any fraud per-
petrated in this counrt," said Mr..
Drury, "this man has not been a
party to it.
whats he going to do about the
childrenT' asked the judge.
Support them" returned SimO's
lawyer, whether he Is here in Keno
sha or there in Elizabeth, N. j. If
he does not, he will have to stand the
consequences of the law"
In discussing the question Of set
ting aside the divorce there was no
intimation that there had been an in
territorial fraud in the securing of the
divorce The attorney in the action
relied on Mrs. S.mo's statements and
upon the fact that mail had been re-
turned unclaimed once from Simo's
lodging address. Mrs. Simo, it is con-
sidered probably, did not understand
what "desertion" under the law
meant.
The Simo case was continued until
Tuesday afternoon. The bonds in the
case were reduced to 5000.