Morgan County Democrat. (McConnelsville, Ohio) 1886-1943, 1931-07-02
MRS. LUCY WORSTTLL TAYLOR
DENIES ALIENATION CHARGES

Many of the allegations made
some weeks ago in an alienation
suit in common pleas court wherein
Nan Gillespie of McConnelsville
seeks damage from Mrs. Lucy Wor-
stell Taylor of Beverly, for her al
legged disruption of the formers
home, are denied in an answer filed
by the defendant. The parties to
the case are members of two of the
Oldest and most widely known fam
lilies in the Muskingum valley.
Samuel D. Taylor of Beverly, a
monument dealer and salesman, is
the present husband of the defend
ant and previously was the husband
of Miss Gillespie. She divorced him
in the Morgan county courts, fol-
lowing which he was married to the
defendant, Lucy Worstell. In her
suit for damages the first wife Of
Taylor charges the present wife
with unbecoming conduct and with
breaking up her home.
In her answer the defendant con-
tends that Taylor and his first wife
did not "live happily together as
husband and wife for over ten
years" after their marriage in Nc
Connelsville on March 16, 1915.
She admits that she met and became
acquainted with Taylor in the year
1925, and alleges that their ac-
quaintance was through a business
transaction" She denies that for
period of five years, as charged by
the plaintiff, ''she had secretly or
stealthily or maliciously pursued
plaintiffs husband, Samuel D. Tay-
lor.'' She denies that she at any
time did anything to cause Taylor
to leave or abandon the plaintiff.
She says that she "has reason to
believe that said Samuel D. Taylor
left the plaintiff herein on account
or disagreements, quarreIs and un-
happiness existing between them
for continuous period of 10
years" She further AYERS that she
has been informed and believes that
a part of said quarrels and disagree
ments "were on account of Samuel
D. Taylors associations with women
other than the defendant herein,
and prior to the time when the de-
fendant herein was acquainted with
Samuel D. Taylor"
Mrs. Taylor denies that she enter
tanned Taylor, went on automobile
rides" with him, or that "she ac-
companied him upon trips to Ma
rietta, Dayton, Columbus or other
towns and cities" She further
denies that she encouraged him to
come to her or to stay away from
his home and from the plaintiff as is
charged in the original petition.
Taylor's present wife denies the
charge that "she wrote many let
ters" to Taylor or that she "used
-endearing TERMS Or, that she "lav-
ished him with gifts and pres
ents," as the plaintiff has charged.
Mrs. Taylor admits that she was
married to Samuel D. Taylor on
April %, 1881, and AYERS that they
now are living together as husband
and wife.
In conclusion of her answer she
denies that by reason of the facts
set forth in the plaintiffs petition
"the plaintiff has lost the affection,
comfort, companionship, fellowship,
society, consortium, aid and support
of Samuel D. Taylor, her former
husband" and she adds that prior
to their divorce in Morgan county,
"there was full settlement Of
property rights between the plaintiff
and her former husband, Samuel D.
Taylor"
She denies each and every a1lega-
tion in the original petition, and
asks the court to dismiss the peti-
ton and award her costs incurred
Her attorneys are Robert NJ Noll of
Marietta and Geo. o. McGonagle of
Observation-Disclosures Times.