1903 Divorces - Oklahoma County, Oklahoma Submitted by: Emily Jordan 24 Dec 2005 Return to Oklahoma County Archives: http://www.usgwarchives.net/ok/oklahoma/oklahoma.html ========================================================================== USGENWEB NOTICE Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm ========================================================================== (1/3/1903) Mrs. Cheniworth who lives three miles north of this city on the Cheniworth place has been abandoned by her husband and is in destitute circumstances. She has three small children which she has to support. She wants to give away a girl 5 years old and a boy 7 years old to parties who will make for the children a good home. (1/6/1903) STORY OF OLD OKLAHOMA Odd Case of Woman Who Has Brought Suit for Land. Guthrie, Okla., Jan. 5.—The efforts of Mrs. Annie E. Rodgers, of Allegheny City, Pa., a widowed wife divorced without her knowledge, to secure for herself and son what they consider their rightful heritage in Logan county real estate, which the husband and father owned, have brought to light a human interest story connected with the first opening of old Oklahoma. In the appeal papers filed with the clerk of the supreme court yesterday by her attorney, Joseph Wisby, Mrs. Rodgers alleges that in 1887 she was married at Sisterville, W.Va., to William Rodgers, who at the time of his death at her home in Allegheny City, in 1898, owned a quarter section of Oklahoma real estate, and it is this farm she is trying to recover from Alemeda and Lewellyn J. Nichols, of Sisterville, W.Va., sister and brother- in-law of her husband. Mrs. Rodgers' son was born in 1888. In the following summer, when old Oklahoma was opened up for settlement, Rodgers left his wife and child at Mannington, W.Va., and came west, saying he would send for them when he had secured a home. He did get a claim, live on it until 1895, make final proof and then, the wife says, joined her in Allegheny City, where they lived until he died in 1898. When the woman came to Guthrie after her husband's death, she found he had secured a divorce from her in the territorial courts in 1895, on the grounds of abandonment, cruelty, abuse and a violent temper. She strenuously denies the allegations, says the divorce was fraudently obtained, and asks the court to set it aside so she and her son can regain possession of the Logan county farm, now held by Rodgers' sister. She says further that Rodgers lived with her from 1895 to 1898, and in addition to securing her a life insurance policy which she has since collected in full, gave her several valuable presents. During his Oklahoma residence she claims Rodgers was in constant correspondence with her. On the trial of the case in the Logan county district court before Judge John H. Burford, the ?oding was for the defendants. (1/8/1903) Elva Bannister has filed a suit asking for divorce from Joseph banister, alleging extreme cruelty. (1/9/1903) Grace Hicks yesterday filed a suit for divorce from E.T. Hicks, alleging cruel treatment and abandonment. Fredie May Harris has filed a suit for divorce from her husband, Joseph Harris, alleging cruel treatment, etc. Both parties are colored. (1/15/1903) Clara R. Pence has filed a suit asking divorce from her husband. Joseph W. Pence, alleging neglect, non-support, etc. (1/20/1903) In the district court Nannie M. Wages has petitioned for a divorce from her husband, James A. Wages, alleging non-support. They were married September 19, 1900, and have one child. O.C. Black is her attorney. (1/22/1903) WANT DIVORCES THREE APPLICATIONS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT YESTERDAY. TWO CLAIM DESERTION Policeman Frank Dixon is Among the Applicants for Marriage Annulment. In the district court yesterday were filed three applications for divorce. Lenora Bernice Zeigler asks a divorce from her husband, Silas C. Zeigler, upon her allegation that he has failed to provide for herself and their eight-year-old child, Myrtle, and further states that Silas frequently struck and beat her. They were married at Chillicothe, Mo., February 23, 1893. Francis H. Dixon petitions the court for a divorce from his wife, Maggie V. Dixon. He states that on November 28, 1901, she left him and returned to her home at North Branch, N.J., where they had been married in August of the same year. He asserts that he visited her on April 1, 1901, and pleaded with her to come back to him, but she refused. He now asks divorce and cancellation of her interest in his property. F.B. Peters wants a legal separation from Gussie L. Peters. He says they were married at Pueblo, Colo., September 6, 1893, and that she quit him December 18, 1901, without just cause. (1/28/1903) John W. Turner, janitor of the court house, has filed a suit in the district court asking divorce from his wife, Susan. (2/1/1903) WANTS A DIVORCE. Says Husband Threatened to Knock Her Head Off. In the district court yesterday Mrs. Belle Barker filed a suit praying for divorce from her husband, William J. Barker, alleging that he fails to support her, maliciously and cruelly choked her and threatened to "knock her head off." They were married in the county of Beadle, South Dakota, on December 17, 1881, and have three children—Guy, aged 19; Melvin, 17, and Maggie, 13. The plaintiff alleges that her husband owns property to the value of $6,050, and she asks alimony in the sum of $3,000 and custody of their children. The court has issued an order restraining defendant from disposing of his property and requiring him to pay $150 to plaintiff within ten days for her use. (2/4/1903) SAYS SHE WAS JEALOUS. And William Bean Wants a Divorce From His Wife. In the district court yesterday William H. Bean filed a petition for divorce from his wife, Eliza F. Bean. They were married at Shelbyville, Bedford county, Tennessee, December 4, 1864, and have a married daughter residing in this city. Bean alleges in the petition that for many months past Mrs. Bean has not been a companionable wife, has been guilty or extreme cruelty toward him, is jealous of him and frequently accuses him with visiting disreputable places and being in company with women of questionable character. He says he has been a kind and indulgent husband, but frequently Mrs. Bean has refused to cook his meals, and he was reduced to the dire extremity of cooking and eating viands of his own preparation. Worse yet, he alleges that on or about January 27, 1903, while he was engaged in a business transaction with a respectable lady in a public street, his wife appeared upon the scene and subjected him to unpleasant accusations, all of which were false and untrue and subjected him to public scorn and ridicule, embarrassing and injuring his good reputation and causing him great pain of body and mind. Therefore he complaineth. (2/10/1903) CALL IT A FAILURE. Three Persons Want the Marriage Knot Untied. Loyd Fisk has filed a petition in the district court suing for a divorce from Lulu Fisk, whom he married at Norman, O.T., December 9, 1898. The petitioner alleges gross neglect of duty on the part of the plaintiff; that she was not divorced from her other husband when she married him and has been guilty of adultery since their marriage. Homer Story for divorce from Anna, his wife, whom he married at Gainesville, Tex., on February 7, 1900. He recites that Anna has frequently cursed and cruelly beaten him and finally deserted him on June 15, 1901. Zora McIntyre sues Harry A. McIntyre for divorce. They were married in Oklahoma City November 8, 1897, alleging abandonment and non-support. The plaintiff also asks restoration of her maiden name, Zora Wilderson. The informant was at one time city editor of the Daily Oklahoman. (2/14/1903) WANTS TO KNOW JUDGE BURWELL MADE SOME INTERESTING INVESTIGATIONS IN COURT YESTERDAY. A NEGRO PORTER TALKS Says One Monahan Conducts Gambling House Under the Two Johns Saloon. Joseph Harris, colored porter in Monahan's gambling house, conducted under the Two Johns saloon on Broadway, was defendant in a divorce suit brought by his wife, Freddie May Harris, and which was tried before Judge Burwell yesterday, resulting in the plaintiff securing a decree. Joseph did not make his appearance when the case was called and he was subpoenaed at the instance of the court and questioned relative to the issue and concerning his occupation and mode of living. [There is more nongenealogical.] (2/15/1903) BIGAMY CHARGE PRELIMINARY TRIAL RESULTS IN MRS. FLINT BEING HELD FOR GRAND JURY. SHE MARRIED TOO SOON And Judge Beauchamp Holds That Sooners Among Divorcees Must Be Prosecuted for Bigamy. Watonga, O.T., Feb. 14.—The preliminary hearing of the bigamy case against Mrs. Bertha Flint was held before Justice Skoon yesterday. The defendant was bound over to the district court. Mrs. Fling secured a divorce at the November term of court in this county. In December she was married to a man in Garfield county. Learning of the Marriage Judge Beauchamp ordered clerk of the court, Moore, to swear out a complaint, charging her with bigamy. The statutes of Oklahoma prohibit a marriage within six months after a divorce is granted. (2/18/1903) Edna M. Cook has filed a suit in the district court praying for a divorce from William H. Cook, her husband. They were married at Hot Springs, Ark., August 20, 1900. The plaintiff alleges gross neglect of duty upon the part of her husband; that he has violated his marital obligations and spent his money upon other women, and that he has taken improper liberties with the 14-year-old daughter of plaintiff by another husband and has threatened illicit relations. (2/20/1903) --A Divorce Granted. Susie Scott was granted a divorce from her husband, William Scott, on the ground of non-support. The decree prevents her marrying again for six months. Both are colored. (2/21/1903) Maggie Hardin yesterday filed a suit in the district court praying for divorcement from Zach Hardin, her husband. They were married in Lincoln county, Oklahoma, August 26, 1902. Plaintiff asks divorce upon the allegation that her husband is in the penitentiary serving a term for felony. (2/22/1903) SUES FOR DIVORCE. Arthur Moore Files a Petition, Charging Adultery. Arthur R. Moore, who was on the 16th acquitted of the charge of murder on the plea of insanity, yesterday filed a suit for divorce from his wife, Adelia C. Moore, alleging adultery. On the night of August 9, last year, Moore shot and killed Edward White, whom he found out walking with Mrs. Moore on West Grand avenue. (2/22/1903) Herschel Farris yesterday filed a suit for divorce from his wife Fannie Farris, alleging desertion. They were married December 19, 1899, at Duhan, Ga. Theodore J. Thompson is attorney for the plaintiff. (2/25/1903) Fannie Perry yesterday filed a petition in the district court asking for a divorce from Frank Perry, to whom she was married in this city April 28, 1902. She alleges desertion. Both are colored. (3/5/1903) Annie DeCamp has filed a suit in the district court praying for a divorce from her husband, Elmus DeCamp. She recites they were married at Mollae, Ill., February 22, 1872, and lived together until March, 1896, at Grinnell, Iowa, when Elmus abandoned her without cause for four or five months, again abandoning her in 1899 and has not since returned. She alleges that on one occasion Elmus threw a stove hook at her and was extremely cruel. (3/6/1903) In the district court yesterday Belle Ethel Alrich filed a petition praying for a divorce from William Alrich. They were married in Oklahoma county December 24, 1900, and have one child, Victor Robert. She alleges cruelty and mistreatment and desertion. Olive Reef has filed a petition asking a divorce from William F. Reef. They were married September 28, 1898, in St. Louis, Mo., and came to Oklahoma City December 27, 1901. She alleges her husband deserted her June 1, 1902, and has since refused to live with her without cause. (3/13/1903) Addie Doyle has filed in the district court a suit for divorce from her husband, James Doyle. She alleges that on February 27 he fired a shot at her with a pistol, and also that he is an habitual drunkard. (3/17/1903) Nora White has filed a suit in the district court asking for a divorce from Reuben A. White. They were married September 8, 1896, at Nabob, Ky. Plaintiff alleges cruelty, neglect and abandonment. In the district court Jessie Snyder has filed a suit for divorce from her husband, Alphonso. They were married August 6, 1894, and have an eight-year-old son named Claud. Mrs. Snyder alleges non-support, habitual drunkenness and abandonment. She asks for divorce and custody of the child. (3/18/1903) A divorce case as filed in the district court yesterday entitled Kid Coleman vs Carrie Coleman. They were married Oct. 8, 1900. The Kid alleges that about one month ago Carrie fled to parts unknown to him, also that she was too friendly with other men, and that on March 14, 1902, she committed the crime of assault with intent to kill and had to flee the country. Both parties to the suit are colored. (4/4/1903) Jennie Dickson has sued her husband William Dickson, for divorce alleging cruel treatment, non-support and desertion. (4/5/1903) Wille Love Farmer has filed a suit in the district court asking divorce from her husband A.L. Farmer. Both are colored. (4/12/1903) Maggie Hardin was yesterday granted a divorce from Zachariah Hardin on account of the latter being an inmate of the penitentiary on the charge of disposing of mortgaged property. (4/16/1903) Bertha Lee has asked the district court for a divorce from her husband, J.W. Lee, alleging desertion. (4/19/1903) GRANTED A DIVORCE. Mrs. Gussie C. Spencer Freed From Habitually Drunken Husband. Mrs. Gussie C. Spencer, aged 26, appeared before Judge Burwell in the district court yesterday and prayed for a divorce from her husband, on the ground of habitual drunkenness. Mrs. Spencer said she was married six years ago in Alton, Ill., and that her husband began drinking soon after the marriage. Somewhat over a year ago he came to Oklahoma City, secured employment, and made an effort to reform, but even before she arrived in the city to join him he was drinking as badly as ever, and there was scarcely a day that he was sober. He had been notified of the proceedings against him, but did not file an answer to his wife's petition, and the divorce was therefore granted her. She was also given the custody of their 3-year-old daughter, Isabel. (4/28/1903) IT WAS DIVORCE DAY OVER A SCORE OF COUPLES SOUGHT LAW'S AID. Judge Burwell Yesterday Sat in Judgment on More Than Fifty Cases, Mostly Divorce. Yesterday was divorce day in the circuit court. More than fifty cases were disposed of by Judge Burwell during the day, and of these more than half were divorce cases. A resume of the day's business is as follows: Richard H. Notzold vs. Elizabeth Notzold, dismissed on account of the failure of the prosecution to appear. The cases of Pairlee Bartlow vs. John F. Wright, and Frank E. Burson vs. Mary Sawer Burson were dismissed on account of the failure of the prosecution to appear, and the costs of the proceedings were assed against the plaintiffs. The case of Joanie Shields vs. Lemon Shields was dismissed at the motion of the plaintiff, who paid the costs. Martha Harris was granted a divorce from Anderson Harris, together with forty acres of land and the custody of one child, the defendant being given the custody of the other three. Flora Hardman vs. Frank Hardman was dismissed, the plaintiff failing to appear. Dora Selby also failed to appear against W. Edward Selby, and the case was dismissed. William Glazer was granted a divorce from his wife, Ella Glazer, on the grounds of incompatibility of temper. J.C. Houser was divorced from Mary J. Houser, who failed to appear. The bonds that had formerly united Emily and Thomas Pocock were severed at the request of the former. Dayton P. Case was given a divorce from his wife Hattie on the ground of desertion. Case was also given custody of the two children. Mrs. Case did not appear. One of the few cases that was contested was that of Ella Lang vs. C.C. Lang. Mrs. Lang charged cruelty and Lang countered with charges of unfaithfulness, and as a result of a long tale of domestic unfelicity was unfolded. Lang did not succeed in substantiating the charges of unfaithfulness, though he was brought to admit that he had on two occasions struck his wife. Since they have separated Lang has employed detectives to spy upon his wife, and Saturday Joseph Brooks, the detective, was caught by Mrs. Lang's brother, and lodged in jail, after some gun play on both sides. Judge Burwell granted the divorce, but decided that the child should be for one month in the custody of Mr. Lang and the next in that of Mrs. Lang. Luna Tottey vs. Clarence Lee Totty was adjourned until the 29th; Mary McNamara vs. Patrick McNamara was dismissed, as was also Grace vs. E.T. Hicks. At the afternoon session divorces were granted to Annie M. Wages, F. B. Peters, Francis H. Dixon, Nellie Staebler, Zora McIntyre, Lulu Peabody, Edna M. Cook, Annie DeCamp, Belle Ethel Alrich, C.M. Edwards, Olive Reef, William Chrisholm, and Edwin I. Root. In the case of Thomas Taylor vs. Edwin Taylor the plaintiff was committed to jail until the questions asked by the judge were answered. Lottie Bassett was granted, by agreement, alimony of $30 per month, from J.E. Bassett, and the temporary injunction issued against the defendant was continued. The costs of the action were assessed against the defendant. (5/10/1903) Nora White was granted a divorce from Reuben A. White. Mrs. White's attorney was Joseph Shaffer. (5/13/1903) Divorces Granted in District Court. A number of divorces were granted. Mary A. Walton, who was represented by John H. Wright, was legally separated from her husband, Joseph H. Walton. The costs were taxed to the defendant, and the plaintiff was given the custody of the children. Jessie Snyder was divorced from Alphonzo Synder. She had to pay the costs, however. Her attorney was J.W. Webb. Martha and Anderson Harris were also legally separated. Mrs. Harris, who petitioned for the divorce, was represented by John Beaty and T.B. Thompson. (5/17/1903) The case of B.F. McClethon vs. C.O. & G.R.R. again occupied the time of the district court yesterday and the taking of testimony has not concluded. A case to be tried next week is the divorce suit of ex-Policeman Francis Dixon vs. Maggie Dixon, his wife. (5/22/1903) Upon Agreement Ex-Policeman Dixon's Divorce Suit Will Be Submitted by Written Affidavit. In the case of Francis Dixon, ex-policeman, against Maggie Dixon for divorce, it was cut out from the docket upon an agreement to submit the case by written affidavit. Mrs. Dixon is in the city to fight the case to the bitter end, coming here from her present home in New Jersey. (5/22/1903) In the district court yesterday Jennie Hanes filed a petition asking divorce from Briley A. Hanes, to whom she was united in marriage in Norman on March 2, 1899, alleging non- support and desertion. In her petition the plaintiff recites that on March 17, 1901, her husband abandoned her and joined the United States army for a term of three years and went to the Philippine Islands, representing to the recruiting officer that he was a single man. This was without the knowledge or consent of his wife. The plaintiff asks for divorce and custody of their boy, Taylor, two and a half years of age. (5/24/1903) In the district court yesterday Alta Windel filed a petition for divorce from her husband, Joseph F. Windel. Plaintiff alleges cruelty and non-support. (5/26/1903) William D. White was yesterday granted a divorce from his wife, Maggie White, on the grounds of abandonment and gross neglect of duty. (5/28/1903) Mrs. Mary L. Pettijohn was yesterday granted a divorce from Augustus Pettijohn and allowed $3,000 alimony. (5/30/1903) In the district court yesterday Nellie Alice Cameron filed a petition asking for a divorce from Fred P. Cameron. The plaintiff in her petition states that they were married December 2, 1897, and that her maiden name was Nellie Alice Wilson. The petitioner states as cause of action that her husband was guilty of extreme cruelty in that on May 19 he used vile and profane language to her and struck her in the face. She asks divorce and restoration of her maiden name. (6/2/1903) A decree of divorce was yesterday granted to Lulu Higgins, wife of William Higgins. They were married at Kingston, Mo., on May 26, 1892. (6/3/1903) L.M. Bodin yesterday filed suit in the district court praying for a divorce from her husband, E.R. Bodin. They were married March 15, 1902, at Tecumseh. The petitioner alleges that her husband, one day in November, 1902, "drove her from the house in her bare feet in the snow, knocked her down and choked her, and about two weeks subsequent thereto threatened to kill her and, with a cocked pistol held to her face, terrified her with threats of instant death, and that defendant has on divers times cruelly assaulated, beat, bruised and otherwise misused her." She asks for divorce and restoration of her maiden name, L.M. Zeller. (6/9/1903) Georgia Roney has filed a petition for a divorce from T.A. Roney, alleging desertion and non-support. She prays that a divorce from the defendant be granted and, as there were no children to the union, that she be allowed to resume her maiden name of Georgia Hightower. They were married in Missouri in January, 1895, and Mr. Roney deserted her in June, 1902. (6/12/1903) A petition was filed in the district clerks' office by Amanda Peters vs. Winslow Peters, for a decree of divorce. The plaintiff alleges that they were married in Missouri in 1891, and charges the defendant with gross neglect, abuse and non-support. The plaintiff prays of a decree of divorce, the custody of their three children, $75 attorney's fee and a just part of the property of the defendant. (6/12/1903) SUIT FOR DIVORCE MRS. FRANK NEWELL ASKS FOR A LEGAL SEPARATION. She Charges Her Husband With Non-Support, Negligence and Forgery. In the district court yesterday Mrs. Estella Newell filed a petition for divorce from her husband, Frank Newell. They were married November 16,1892. The petitioner recites that the defendant has, during the past six months, wholly disregarded his marriage duties and obligations, and given himself over to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors to the extent that he has wholly neglected his business and failed to provide for her support, but on the contrary has neglected her and used all his income and money in dissipating and consorting with persons of low and disreputable character. It is further alleged that the defendant on about May 28th removed to Denver, Colo., stating that he did not intend to return and live with plaintiff; and it is further alleged that the day prior to departure he forged her name to a check for $14 to the Western National bank. The plaintiff prays for divorce and restoration of her maiden name, Estella Higgins. Johnson & Reeves are attorneys for the plaintiff. (6/14/1903) IN DISTRICT COURT Divorce Record Shows That Eight Souls With But a Single Thought Have Taken Another Think. A divorce was granted the plaintiff in the following cases: Louisa Cross vs. James M. Cross. Kitte Rakestraw vs. James M. Rakestraw. Blanche V. Hawley vs. Frank M. Hawley. Nellie Alice Cameron vs. (6/17/1903) WANTS A DIVORCE HER HUSBAND WENT OFF WITH A MINSTREL SHOW. He Mortgaged Her Property and Spent the Money and Then Took Her Home to Mother. In the district court yesterday Hattie B. Lowery filed a petition asking divorce from James H. Lowery. They were married in Oklahoma county on May 22, 1892. The dusky plaintiff in her petition alleges she owned eighty acres of land in this county valued at $800, and conveyed same to her husband without consideration. That she also owned the southwest quarter of section 18, township 12, north of range 2 west I.M. in Oklahoma county, and her husband mortgaged this for $700 without her knowledge or consent, and also a large amount of personal property owned by her, and invested the funds received in cars and paparphernalia for a negro minstrel show and employed a number of colored women to travel in the troupe and continued in the business for a year; and failing in the business came back to the farm without property or means of support. Later he took plaintiff to her mother's home to reside and commenced laying brick for a livelihood, abandoning her and failing to contribute to her support. Plaintiff asks divorce and an equitable award of defendant's property. Both parties are colored. (6/20/1903) THE LAW HOLDS HIM VESSY MARRIED OKLAHOMA COUNTY WOMAN TOO SOON. He Did Not Wait the Required Six Months After Divorcement—Important Court Decision. Holdenville, I.T., June 19.—Al. Vassey, agent at the Frisco depot, was arrested and bound over for the grand jury on a charge of bigamy, in which is illustrated a principle of the law. Mr. Albert L. Everett and wife, together with their nine-year-old daughter, lived at Mustang, Okla. During their residence at that place the defendant, Al. Vasey, became an acquaintance of the wife. Later divorce proceedings were instituted by Mrs. Everett against her husband, and a decree of divorcement was granted by the district court of Oklahoma county, Oklahoma territory. Soon thereafter and prior to the expiration of six months from the date of the decree of divorcement, Mrs. Everett and the defendant Al. Vessey were married at Holdenville. The statutes of the Indian territory provides that bigamy is the is the marriage knowingly of an unmarried person with the husband or wife of another. The court held that the Oklahoma law forbidding the marriage of the divorced parties for a period of six months after the decree of divorcement was extra- territorial in its application and that the defendant is guilty of bigamy. (6/23/1903) Mrs. Georgia Williamson has sued for a divorce from her husband. Edward Williamson, alleging desertion and non-support, and asked restoration of her maiden name, Georgia Smith. (6/23/1903) In the district court yesterday Emma McGarrah filed a suit for divorce from her husband, John R. McGarrah. They were married on October 10, 1900. The plaintiff alleges non- support and asks for divorce and restoration of her maiden name, Emma Simpson. (6/30/1903) Probate Judge Harper yesterday issued a writ of habeas corpus ordering Oscar Leverick, charged with illegally holding in his custody Ovia May Leverich, aged 7, Clarence Elmer Leverich, age 5, and Jessie McVay Leverich, to produce said children before the court at 2 o'clock on the afternoon of June 30. The writ was sworn out by the mother of the children, Lillian M. Leverich, and a warrant was also sworn out for the arrest of Oscar Leverich, charging him with securing the children from their mother by stealth for the purpose of getting them out of the jurisdiction of the court. (7/3/1903) Albert M. Wasson yesterday filed a petition in the district court asking a divorce from his wife, Eliza A. Wasson. They were married in Fremont county, Colo., December 1, 1887, and have four children, who are living with the plaintiff. Cruelty and absconding from home are alleged by him. Both parties are colored. (7/14/1903) B.F. CROWELL SEEKS DIVORCE. Claims That His Wife, Lillie May, Has Deserted Him. B.F. Crowell yesterday afternoon in district court filed a petition for divorce from his wife, Lillie May Crowell. The petitioner charges that they were married in Guthrie December 13, 1900, and that on or about May 15, 1902, his wife deserted him and has since refused to live with him, though he has urged her to do so, and has always conducted himself towards her as a loyal and loving husband should. Mr. Crowell's attorneys are Highley and Kleinschmidt. (7/16/1903) DIVORCE FOLLOWS FAST ON HEELS OF MARRIAGE. Oklahoma City Bride of Two Months Has Her Romance Officially Ended By the Court. [photo included] Matrimonial accidents are not of ??? uncommon occurrence that they should cause a future of excitement, for the ???? of the divorce courts present many evidences of unlucky alliances; and yet these monuments to the sorrows of affections and faith that have gone amiss, offer few parallels to the number of unfortunate in???s which have occurred in Oklahoma City's best society during the past months. It would seem that among a society so strongly fortified matrimonial wrecks of such number and such unhappy details would be an impossibility. Faded Dream of Love. The latest affair of this character, and one causing surprise that amounts almost to consternation, is the quickly ended matrimonial venture of one of Oklahoma City's most prominent and accomplished society girls, Mrs. I.T. Jones, formerly Miss Veta McClure. Yesterday divorce proceedings were instituted and Mr. Jones waiving issuance and service of summons the divorce was granted before Judge Barwell, in chambers at 3 o'clock. The divorce petition is as follows: "The plaintiff, Veta Eilean Jones, for cause of action against the defendant, Isaac T. Jones, alleges and says: That this plaintiff is now an actual and bonafide resident of Oklahoma county, territory of Oklahoma, and has been an actual and bona fide resident of Oklahoma territory for more than one year next prior to this date. "That the plaintiff and defendant were legally married in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, territory of Oklahoma, on or about the 11th day of May, 1903, and ever since have been and are now husband and wife. "That the said defendant, Isaac T. Jones, has been guilty of gross neglect of duty towards the plaintiff in this, that since the date of said marriage he has wholly failed to contribute to the support of the plaintiff or to furnish her with any money or to provide any home for her, although all of said time well and able bodied and in such condition of health that he could have worked at his profession and earned money, and supported plaintiff. That prior to said marriage said defendant informed plaintiff that he was able to support plaintiff and to care for her, but that after said marriage instead of supporting plaintiff and furnishing her a house and supplying her with food and clothing, the said defendant insisted on living with the defendant's mother, and, although often requested to do so, defendant neglected, failed and refused to provide plaintiff with a separate home, or to provide for her living expenses in any manner. "That on or about the 20th day of June, 1903, said defendant, without any just cause or provocation, left plaintiff, and his whereabouts are wholly unknown to plaintiff. Before leaving plaintiff, defendant admitted to plaintiff that he had no means of support or livelihood whatever. "Plaintiff says that she desires to be restored to her maiden name of Veta Ellean McClure. "Wherefore plaintiff prays for a decree of absolute divorce and for the restoration of her maiden name of Veta Ellean McClure. Mrs. Jones was represented by Mr. J.H. Everest as her attorney. An Oklahoma girl from infancy, the daughter of a man whose name is synonymous with the growh and enterprise of the city, and one whose death is spoken of with regret by all, Miss Veta McCLure entered upon life with the most brilliant prospects. Given all the advantages that love and wealth combined could offer, endowed by nature with beauty of face and form, it seemed that the Fates had reserved for her a life unmarred by cloud or storm. But just upon the threshold of womanhood, when life held out a fairer promise, sorrow has folded her in his sable garments. A few short weeks ago, on May the 11th— Miss McClure wedded the man of her choice, but before July had rolled around, her dream of happiness had faded and she and Mr. Jones were separated. The wedding was a hastily arranged but brilliant affair and was supposed by all to be a singularly happy and propitious one, as the bride was the most dashing favorite of all the belles in Oklahoma, having beauty, wealth, vivacity, dramatic talent and rare social charm. The groom was of prepossessing appearance, heralded by all as a man of brilliant legal attainments, a fortunate mining operator and a popular club and society man known to the best society of the west, and a favorite with all who knew him. Began With a Romance. From the beginning there was an unusual touch of romance connected with the affair, starting with a trip the bride made several years ago to Colorado Springs, the residence at that time of the groom. With her gowns and her graces, the little girl from Oklahoma made a decided sensation in the social circles of the gay summer visit of the west, and one of the many who felt the power of her charms was Mr. Jones. He was introduced to the visitor by well known society people of the Springs, in whose circle he moved, and was one of its most petted and flattered and courted favorites. Seeing this, the bride, to use her own words, "became chesty and indifferent towards him," which only served to increase his ardor, and he persisted in his suit ??? all obstacles and finally triumphed over the ???erous rival suitors to her hand, and so the romance culminated with a wedding. Great preparations were made—the house was decked in flowers and trailing roses, bridesmaids, flower girls and ???? attended the beautiful and smiling bride. The wonderful wedding gown was of rose point lace that lay on its foundation of white taffeta like drifted snow on gleaming ????. The groom looked manly and handsome and the bride was the envied of all her girl friends. Beautiful gifts were showered upon the pair, and the wedding supper was the week's wander of the town. The Short Honeymoon. On the night of the wedding, according to the story of the sequel as told by the bride, the pair left for San Antonio, Texas, on a short honeymoon trip, returning in about ten days and stopping off with the bride's mother for a short visit en route to their Idaho home. Time dragged along and the stay lengthened out from day to day; announcements of their departure were made again and again, and the next day after the intended departure still saw the young couple in town. Finally, after much urging on the part of the bride, preparations were made and a day and hour set for leaving. On the morning of the departure Mr. Jones arose at about six a.m. and complained of feeling ill and said that he would take a short walk, so he left the home of Mrs. McClure for that purpose. The bride expressed regret, so she says, at his indisposition and asked him to be sure and return in an hour as that would give them time to get their breakfasts and reach the station in time for the 8:10 a.m. train to Guthrie, it being their intention to make a short stop at that place with friends en route to their new home. The bride arose and dressed and after wailing for some time ate her breakfast, and feeling a trifle provoked, went to the train without the groom. Where Was Jones? The train pulled in and the bride boarded it but still Mr. Jones did not appear. Just as the train was about to pull out, a clerk from the Hotel Lee appeared and said that Mr. Jones was at the hotel and was feeling ill and therefore would not go down to Guthrie that morning. Mrs. Jones inquired whether it was anything serious and offered to return if such was the case. The clerk replied that it was merely a sick headache and that Mr. Jones would come down on the afternoon train. So Mrs. Jones, knowing her friends were expecting her and having with her numerous packages and traveling bags, proceeded on her way, with no thought that never again would she see her husband, and that their careless parting that morning was the last. Mrs. Jones arrived at Guthrie and was met by her friend, one of the prominent society women of not only Guthrie, but the territory. They lunched happily together and together went to meet the afternoon train in the full expectation that Mr. Jones would arrive by it. Mr. Jones was not on the train nor did he come that night nor the next morning. In the afternoon Mrs. Jones and her friend attended a social function, from which they excused themselves early in order to again meet the afternoon train. When Mr. Jones did not arrive on this train, Mrs. Jones, much perplexed and very much hurt, called him up on the long distance phone and asked him to explain his conduct. Mr. Jones expressed indignation at her leaving without him when he was ill, and insisted that she return at once to Oklahoma City. This she refused to do as he acceded to her request to stop off at Guthrie, and she said she was only following out the plan he had made, which was to proceed after a short visit there to their northwestern home. Mr. Jones claimed he had changed his plans and wished first to visit Chicago, and in leave Oklahoma City for that purpose over the Frisco, proceeding by way of St. Louis. Mrs. Jones replied that he really did not care for her or he would be willing to follow her to Guthrie and continue their journey from there, and that his illness was merely feigned as an excuse to avoid going with her on the morning of her departure. Mr. Jones insisted on Mrs. Jones returning to Oklahoma City, and absolutely refused to join her at Guthrie. Mrs. Jones, in turn, refused to return, stating that she had stayed and stayed here already until she "was humiliated and at her wits' end for excuses to explain to her friends the delay of their departure," a thing which she herself was unable to fathom. The conversation ended by Mrs. Jones informing Mr. Jones that since he seemed to be anxious to get rid of her and avoid taking her away with him that, in her opinion, the best thing to be done was for him to leave Oklahoma City at once. Refused to Arbitrate. When affairs had reached this unhappy stage and the facts as stated had been related to Mrs. Mary McClure, the mother of Mrs. Jones, she sent for Mr. Jones who since the departure of his wife, had taken up quarters at the Lee Hotel, and interceded. Mrs. McClure offered to her self bring his wife from Guthrie if he would promise to take her away at once over the Frisco as he had said he would. She asked Mr. Jones whether he would do this. Mr. Jones replied that he could not do so at once. Mrs. McClure then asked him whether he would take her the day following her arrival home, and he answered no, that he would not be ready so soon. The matter was then dropped and Mr. Jones very shortly thereafter left town, without leaving any word or any address. Among other things that Mr. Jones stated during his final conversation with Mrs. McClure, was that he though "Veta" married him merely for the sake of having a big wedding. Mrs. Jones says that this charge is absurd, for if she had desired a showy wedding she would have married a military man and had a wedding attended by a regimental band and officers in uniform, with fluttering regalia and a pageant attired in robes of state. Mrs. Jones voiced her sentiments on the subject of intellectual husbands by saying that now she "understood why talented men always had such stupid wife; because every time they opened their mouths 'they were corrected and snubbed, until finally they ceased to make the effort." The Dreg in the Cup. Although Mr. Jones' conduct remains an inexplicable mystery, a tiny shadow of light was thrown upon the situation by the bride's statement that if the groom had only had a thousand dollars she would gladly have made the most of it and endeavored to live within his means and added , "or even if he had had only five hundred I would still have clung to him and sought to have avoided this extremely humiliating and unhappy sequel to our marriage, but" – and here was reached the crescendo of her woe—"he not only did not have that much money, but he had not even so much as One Hundred Dollars!" And it cannot but be conceded that to embark upon a matrimonial venture, including a fashionable wedding and honeymoon trip, less than one hundred dollars is a somewhat frail ????. Mrs. Jones considers that Mr. Jones' action in marrying under such circumstances was highly dishonorable. By the Sad Sea Waves. Regarding her future prospects Mrs. Jones already has some very decided views. It has been thought more than once, and mentioned among her friends, that with her beauty and talent, that by her marriage Mrs. Jones was spoiling a probably brilliant state career, and now that her matrimonial affairs had come to such an abrupt end it was rumored that she would very likely embrace the state as a profession and a career. When asked if she would be likely to do so, Mrs. Jones' golden head nodded an emphatic denial and she replied, No, I have decided to become a trained nurse and shall spend the next two years in hospital work and study in some well known hospital, either in the extreme east or west, as I desire to be near one or the other. I am very fond of the ??? and then, too, I feel as if I should like to go as far as possible from my Oklahoma home with the memories it holds of my recent great unhappiness. (7/19/1903) ASK FOR DIVORCE Unhappily Mated Go to Court For Release. There were two petitions for divorce filed in the office of the clerk of the district court yesterday, and in both cases the parties seeking separation have been married for more than 20 years. Malinda W. Horner seeks divorce from Joseph S. Horner on the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty. The couple were married at Lamar, Barton County, Mo., on July 7, 1881, and lived together until May, 1901, when Mrs. Horner was obliged to leave her husband on account of his cruelty to her and the fact that he did not support her. She alleges in her petition that he often shamefully abused her before their two daughters, and that instead of working for a living for the family, though he is healthy and able-bodied, he has spent his time gambling and drinking, thus compelling the mother and daughters to provide for their own support. Mrs. Horner's lawyers are Shartel, Keaton and Wells. Horner himself is supposed to be in Carthage, Mo., where he was last heard from. The other unfortunate seeking a release from marriage bonds is Chas. G. Deck, who asks a divorce from his wife, Florence Beck. They were married on January 25, 1882, in New York City. On February 22, 1891, while they were living in Winfield, Long Island, Mrs. Beck deserted her husband without cause, he alleges, taking with her their daughter. Mr. Beck later found the child in New York in the hands of strangers, and took possession of it, placing the little girl in the charge of his relatives in Manhattan. Mrs. Beck he has not heard from since her disappearance, and does not know where she lives. Mr. Beck's attorneys are Milton & Beaty. (7/22/1903) SEEK FOR RELEASE UNHAPPILY MARRIED COUPLES APPEAL TO THE COURT. Mrs. Smith of Choctaw City Has Order Issued Restraining Her Husband From Selling Property. Two new divorce suits were filed in the office of District Clerk Snear yesterday. Mary A. Smith prays for divorce from her husband, Daniel Smith, and asks for alimony. She charges that he has been extremely cruel to her and that he does not support her properly, but spends his time at the saloons. They were married December 11, 1879, at Warrensburg, Mo., and have nine children, of whom two are married and the remainder are minors, whose ages extend down to 15 months. On July 1 Mrs. Smith says her husband drove her off their farm, and she went to Choctaw City, where she has been since. Her husband brought the children to her and she has since had to keep them also. Her husband owns two farms in this county, but she alleges that he is trying to sell them and out of the country. She therefore asked for the issuance of a restraining order, and this Judge Burwell granted. The case will come up for trial soon. Mrs. Smith's attorneys are Milton and Beaty. The other couple seeking relief from the matrimonial yoke has seen troublous times. Edward Jones asks that court to release him from the promise to love, cherish and obey his wife, Lottie, until death should them part. Edward and Lottie are both colored. Edward bases his plea for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty, and if his allegations are true he has certainly led a live existence. His wife, it seems, is an extremely strenuous person, and on July 19, without any provocation whatever, as he avers, Lottie, in a fit of violent anger, tried to carve her spouse with a big knife, and, failing in that, took a couple of shots at him from a revolver. Edward managed to escape unhurt, but decided that heretofore life with the gentle Lottie had no charms for him, and at one applied for divorce, through his attorneys, Hays and McMechan. (7/23/1903) DIVORCES GRANTED. Two Couples Obtain Relief From Marital Troubles. At the district court yesterday Judge Burwell granted two divorces. The bonds that united Georgia Williamson and her husband, Edward, were severed on application of Mrs. Williamson, who was represented by Attorney Wilson. The costs of the action were charged to the plaintiff, who was granted her maiden name again. Georgia Roney was granted a divorce from her husband T.A. Roney. Mrs. Roney's maiden name was restored, but she was compelled to pay the costs of the action. Shewas represented by Attorney Wilson. The divorce case of Estella Newell vs. Frank P. Newell was adjourned until today. Mrs. Newell was present in court yesterday but her husband was not, and the case was accordingly adjourned. She is represented by C. Porter Johnson. (7/24/1903) William Bevell has filed an application for a divorce from his wife, Rose M. Bevell, charging abandonment. They were married October 1, 1891, at Chillicothe, Mo., and were still living there a year later, when Mrs. Bevell abandoned her home and has never returned. The plaintiff's lawyers are Wilson and Gray. (7/25/1903) In the district court yesterday Chas. Barnhart filed suit for divorce from Goldie Barnhart. They were married March 13, 1901, at Williamsport, Ind., and separated the same date. McAbe and Hunter and G.W. Thompson are Barnhart's attorneys. (8/2/1903) Wants a Divorce. Suit for divorce was filed in the district court yesterday by Virginia L. Maxwell, asking legal separation from her husband, Wm. J. Maxwell. Temporary alimony was granted. (8/9/1903) A divorce was granted in the district court to Mrs. Frank Newell, together with restoration of her maiden name, Estella Newell. (8/13/1903) HOOVER DIVORCE SILAS C. HOOVER SECURED A DECREE ON HIS CROSS PETITION TO HIS WIFE'S SUIT. WAS A SENSATIONAL CASE Judge Burwell Said it Was the Most Remarkable Divorce Suit That Ever Came to His Attention. When Judge B.F. Burwell yesterday afternoon rendered his decision granting a divorce to Silas C. Hoover from Mrs. Lillie Hoover, upon the former's cross petition, the decree terminated one of the most remarkable divorce cases ever tried in the territory of Oklahoma. The divorce case is only one of many cases that have been before the court recently entitled Hoover vs. Hoover, in some of which the husband was defendant and in others the plaintiff, and the end is not yet in the matter of litigation, as one or two more cases under this title are yet to be heard. The origin of the troubles of the Hoovers may best be gleaned from one of the petitions of Silas C. Hoover, substantially alleging: That he became acquainted with Lillie Harris when she was the wife of F.W. Harris, and that she represented that she had not lived with Harris for several years and that it was her purpose to secure a divorce from him, which she in fact afterward did in the court at Perry, in Noble county. That she and Hoover were then married. That prior to this marriage, she insisted that Hoover should convey all of his property to her, which conveyance was made without any valid consideration, Hoover believing at the time she was in love with him. That Hoover since learned that he decree of divorce from Harris and marriage to himself were fraudulent and for the purpose of securing his property, in order that she and F.W. Harris, and Grace Harris, his daughter, could effectually secure control and ownership of his property, and thereafter to cause difficulty and trouble in such manner as to justify his wife in leaving him and securing a divorce from him, and then she would remarry Harris. That Hoover lost his entire property in consequence of this conspiracy and fraud. That from the sale of Hoover's property she purchased certain property in Oklahoma City, conveyed same to Harris, who in turn conveyed it to Grace Harris, his daughter. Mrs. Hoover, in the petition, alleged that, while living with Hoover at his hotel in Norman, he tried to compel her to sleep with him in a room in which there was another man. This was only one of many sensational allegations on either side. In rendering his decision yesterday Judge Burwell said: "I must say that in some respects this is the most remarkable divorce case I have ever heard of. While I have tried a great many divorce cases, this caps the climax in several respects. Of course it is very clear from the evidence that Mr. Hoover must have known before he finally married this woman that she was not divorced at the time she came to his hotel. In the other trial he also testified to certain advances made by Mrs. Hoover to him, for instance when taking a walk the first evening she was at his hotel, but that testimony was never denied by Mrs. Hoover. (Here Judge McAtee, attorney for Mrs. Hoover, asserted that the transcript of the testimony would show Mrs. Hoover denied the allegations referred to.) After she had remained there some time the evidence shows they were engaged to be married and she told him she would get a divorce. She came up here to get a divorce, but the suit was dismissed, but she says she never knew of it." The judge then reviewed the transactions involving the transfer of properties from Hoover to Mrs. Hoover, and of Hoover suggesting the proprietary of her getting money from Harris to settle certain outstanding debts. "Finally," the court continued, "Harris asked permission to go to see his children. Of course those children were living down there and it was but natural for him to want to see them, yet he could have visited them at other places and the conditions would have been much more pleasant. After he got permission from Mr. Hoover to visit his girls, by some means or other he was taken into the employ of Hoover and remained there some time. Mrs. Hoover contends Mr. Hoover suggested that Harris go to work for them, while Mr. Hoover maintains, on the contrary, that Harris was employed upon her suggestion and pleading. I must admit that Mr. Hoover has acted very peculiarly in many respects, but it does seem strange that a man who had married the divorced wife of another man should want to take the latter into his home. "There is another feature: The letters which were claimed to have been written by George to her mother. Nowhere in the testimony is it denied that those letters were written except the indefinite denials of Grace. Mrs. Hoover says she did not receive the letters after Mr. Hoover took them out of the office and told her what they were. If she had not been receiving letters of that character and knew nothing about it, it would seem she would be very anxious to get hold of those letteres to see what they contained, especially as to the accusations they made against Mr. Hoover at that time. On the other hand, as to the hotel transaction and about the alleged conspiracy to defraud Mr. Hoover out of his hotel, I have passed upon that question and found nothing due Mr. Hoover because, taking his own testimony, they paid more into the hotel than they got out. He was not, in fact, defrauded and in an action of that kind the court could not take into consideration a fraud unless actually committed. "There is no question but what Mr. Hoover in this transaction has acted in a very vindictive manner toward his wife, but I am inclined to the opinion that in the first place Mrs. Hoover was at fault. I am inclined to the opinion, taking all the evidence in these two cases, that they were trying to beat the old man out of that property, but I think she got tired of him and concluded to quit him; whether because unable to get money from as she had anticipated or for other reasons, I am not prepared to say, I am inclined to think that Mrs. Hoover, in the first instance, was to blame for this separation. I believe she could not have gotten along pleasantly with him. She is not corroborated in any of the essential matters at issue. "It will be the judgment of this court that the defendant be granted a divorce on his cross petition. When choosing between denying a decree or granting it, under these circumstances, I have concluded that it would perhaps be better to grant the decree upon the cross petition, and to divide the costs. The decree is not granted upon the ground of adultery, but on the ground of gross neglect of duty and conspiracy. Judge McAtee, attorney for Mrs. Hoover, asked that the contents of the letters referred to be stricken from the record of the case. Judge Burwell then took up the divorce case of Edwin Beale vs. Christine Beale. (8/13/1903) The Divorce Court. Divorces were granted yesterday in the district court in the following cases: Jennie Haines vs. Bailey R. Hanes and Silas Hoover vs. Lillie Hoover. In the latter case a division of property was ordered. The case of Beal vs. Beal is being heard. (8/14/1903) In the district court yesterday Ella Burke filed a petition for a divorce from her husband, A.B. Burke, alleging abandonment. Both are colored people. (8/15/1903) In the case of Edwin Beal vs. Christina Beal, Judge Burwell granted the husband a divorce, but gave the wife custody of their minor child; $750 permanent alimony and $12 a month for the child. In the case of James Jordan vs. Hattie Jordan, a divorce was granted the plaintiff, while Mrs. Jordan was given $500 permanent alimony and $8 a month for support of their minor child. (8/21/1903) In the district court Annie Jordan has filed a suit for divorce from Charles Jordan, alleging drunkenness and non-support. Jordan is employed on the Katy construction work. (8/27/1903) Many Divorces Filed. Chickasha, I.T., Aug. 26.—Seven divorce cases have been filed in the United States circuit court here in the past two days. Most of the petitions alleged abandonment and non-support, while only one is for statutory offense. (9/5/1903) Charles G. Beck was yesterday granted a decree of divorce from his wife, Florence Beck. They were married in New York City January 23?, 1882?. Beck alleges that his wife deserted him in February, 18??, and has ever since refused to live with him. (9/12/1903) A.E. Walchter has sued for a divorce from Jennie Walchter alleging that from the use of cocaine and other drugs she is no longer competent to perform her household duties. (9/18/1903) Mrs. Allen Gillen yesterday filed a suit in the district court against her husband, William Gillen, praying divorce and alleging neglect and extreme cruelty. They were married in St. Louis and lived in El Reno for some time before coming here. (9/20/1903) Two divorces were granted in the district court yesterday. Sarah N. Donelson was given a decree of divorce from John D. Donelson, and Aren Pickup secured annulment of his marriage to Nellie E. Pickup, and he is now at liberty to "pickup" another partner. (9/22/1903) In the District court, Florzella J. Church has entered a suit for divorce from Samuel H. Church, and also asks the custody of their son Archibald, …. 13. Gross neglect and non- support is alleged. E. Reardon is plaintiff's attorney. (9/23/1903) Mrs. Nellie Twigg has filed suit in the district court against Charles R. Twigg and asks restoration of her maiden name Nellie Graves. Cruel treatment and non-support is alleged. (9/24/1903) THE DISTRICT COURT SEVERAL DIVORCES GRANTED AT YESTERDAY'S SESSION. The district court has disposed of cases as follows: Eliza Thompson secured a decree of divorce from Henry Thompson. Martha J. Allen vs. Willard T. Allen; divorce; dismissed on account of failure to prosecute on account of plaintiff's death. Lillian M. Leverich vs. Oscar Leverich; divorce and custody; report of referee confirmed; custody to plaintiff until further orders. The defendant was adjudged in default in the following cases: Malinda W. Horner vs. Joseph S. Horner, divorce and custody; Charles Barnhart vs. Goldie Barnhart, divorce. Aaron Pickup vs. Nellie E. Pickup; divorce; defendant in default. Rose Danruther vs. Lewis Danruther; divorce; trial Sept. 28. Susie Barber vs. G.N. Barber; divorce and alimony; trial Sept. 25. Annie Jordon vs. Charles Jordon; divorce; trial Sept. 24. (9/24/1903) In the district court, Mary Upman has filed a suit praying for a divorce from her husband, George Upman. They were married in Denver, Colo., in 1882. They have four children, the eldest being a daughter of 18. Limited support and extreme cruelty is alleged. Mrs. Upman says her husband owns a house and lot in Orchard park addition, which she asks the court to set apart and convey to her as a homestead. She further says her husband owns a stock of jewelry valued at $2400. She asks divorce and custody of the minor children. An injunction restraining her husband from disposing of the property mentioned is prayed for, $50 per month alimony and an attorney fee of $50. W.C. Reeves is attorney for the plaintiff. (9/27/1903) Mrs. Lena Solberger yesterday filed a petition in the district court praying for a divorce from her husband, John Solberger. They were married in Lima, O., in November, 1882. Mrs. Solberger alleges her husband has frequently threatened with death herself and E.B. Bonaparte, her son by a former marriage, and that on two occasions she has been made violently sick by poison administered; as she believes, by her husband or some one at his instigation. She sets forth that her husband owns a quarter section of land in Oklahoma county valued at $4,000; that she is entitled to alimony out of said property and asks that eighty acres of the said homestead on which the house and buildings are located be set aside for her; also $50 during pendency of suit and $50 for attorney's fees. (9/30/1903) Several Divorces Granted Yesterday. Rose Dannreuther, granted a divorce from Lewis Dannreuther, alimony $532 and lien on real estate of defendant. Eugene Rocco was granted a divorce from Flo Etta Rocco. Emma McGarrah was granted a divorce from John McGarrah. (10/6/1903) In the district court, Clara R. Gouley has filed a petition praying for a divorce from her husband, Frank N. Gouley, charging defendant with adultery with one Julia Davis at Newport, New Hampshire, and being the father of a child borne by the latter. The plaintiff alleges extreme cruelty, reciting that Gouley drove her from home and then lived with the Davis woman. (10/2/1903) DISTRICT COURT WITHDRAW DIVORCE SUITS The following proceedings occurred in the District court yesterday: Jerr? Fite vs. R?chie Fite, divorce, dismissed upon motion of and at cost of plaintiff. Minnie Page vs. Scott F. Page, divorce, custody, injunction; dismissed at cost of plaintiff; no prosecution. Annie Jordon vs. Charles Jordon, divorce; dismissed without prejudice, cost of plaintiff. Ella C. Lang vs. C.C. Lang, divorce, minor child given to father during winter, mother to have child over Saturdays and Sundays. Gault vs. Gault, divorce; set for trial October 6. (10/6/1903) THE DISTRICT COURT Only One Divorce Granted at Yesterday's Session of the Court. In the district court, Judge B.F. Burwell presiding, cases were disposed of as follows: [twenty lines of newspaper unreadable, so couldn't find divorce granted] Kid Coleman vs. Carrie Coleman; divorce; hearing on motions continued to October 12. (10/7/1903) THE DISTRICT COURT In the district court, Judge B.F. Burwell presiding, disposition of cases was made as follows: Gault vs. Gault; divorce; defendant directed to furnish schedule of property in twenty- four hours. Trial continued to October 27. (10/9/1903) DISTRICT COURT A decree of divorce was given plaintiff in case of Kid Coleman vs. Carrie Coleman. (10/17/1903) Mrs. M.A. Hodge has filed in the district court a petition asking divorce from her husband, J.P. Hodge. George W. Thompson has sued for divorce from his wife, Mary I. Thompson. (10/20/1903) Mrs. M.A. Hodge has filed in the district court a petition asking divorce from her husband, J.P. Hodge, George W. Thompson has sued for divorce from his wife, Mary I. Thompson. (10/21/1903) Mrs. Rose E. Dean has sued for a divorce from her husband, Morris C. Dean, alleging cruel treatment and non-support. (11/3/1903) Court Proceedings. Susie Alexander v. Edward Alexander, divorce; motion submitted to confirm referee's report. (11/6/1903) Lillian Snowden McGuire of this city has filed in the district court a petition for divorce from her husband, William Arthur McGuire, a non-resident of the territory. The plaintiff alleges that since her marriage in Minneapolis, Minn., on September 23, 1896, her husband has been and is now an habitual drunkard, and that he has failed to provide for her support, compelling her to earn her own living. For these reasons the plaintiff, through her attorney, Shartel, Keaton and Wells, asks for a divorce. (11/15/1903) No Divorce Yet. Judge Burwell of the district court last night vacated the report of the referee awarding a divorce to the plaintiff in the case of Susie Alexander vs. Edward Alexander. (11/22/1903) WINTER TIME IN COURT. Domestic Settlement Made by Oklahoma City Lady. Enid, Okla., Nov. 21.—In district court Friday, a pretty Oklahoma City lady was on the witness stand. She is Mrs. Fred Winter, formerly of Hobart, and more recently of this city. Her business in court was to settle some business affairs with her husband whom she is suing for a divorce. Fred Winter is the owner of the city bill posting business in Enid, and while he was absent from this city this summer with the Ringling circus, Mrs. Winter and her husband had trouble and separated. Mrs. Winter had an order from the district court, allowing her to conduct the business and her husband wanted the order dissolved. Judge Irwin turned the posting business over to the husband. Mrs. Winter is employed in the telephone office at Oklahoma City. (11/24/1903) Dodged the Divorce. Guthrie, Okla., Nov. 23.—It is reported from Coyle, this county, that in order to thwart the service of his wife's divorce papers upon him, that Polk Higbee, the Coyle banker and capitalist, has disappeared, first it is alleged, disposing of his property. His wife sues for $10,000 alimony, also. (12/5/1903) Asks Injunction. J.E. Bassett has filed a suit in the district court making his divorced wife, Lottie Bassett, and Sheriff M. A. O'Brien defendants. The plaintiff's petition asks that defendants be restrained from selling his undivided half interest in certain property to satisfy an execution obtained as a result of his wife's recent suit against him, in which she secured judgment for $30 per month as alimony, $25 attorney fee and $16.70 costs. His livery and wood business are involved in the matter. (12/6/1903) Minister Asks Divorce. Rev. Jacob R. Benedict yesterday filed a suit praying divorce from his wife, Susie Bennett. Both are colored. They were married at Lexington, Miss., November 25, 1880. The Reverend applicant asserts that they ceased to live together as man and wife in January, 1900, at Hot Springs, Ark., that he was compelled to give up his pastorate there on account of his wife's conduct; that she was insanely jealous of him and frequently accused him of adultery. He says he gave her residence property in Hot Springs valued at $1,100. (12/9/1903) Sequel to a Sensation. Mrs. Annie Appleson, who was one of the principles in the sensational encounter at the Overholser opera house Sunday night, has applied for a divorce from her husband, alleging ill treatment. She alleges that seven years ago she left her husband on that account, but was persuaded to again live with him. In police court yesterday Appleson was fined two dollars for his participation in the Sunday night episode, the court evidently considering that Appleson "had a kick coming." (12/20/1903) SIX COUPLES ARE UNHITCHED JUDGE BURWELL GRANTS DIVORCES AT TECUMSEH Shawnee, Okla., Dec. 19.—In the district court Judge Burwell divorced six couples. Alice Johnson is given a decree separating her from Andrew Johnson; Rosa E. McCreary from Dennis J. McCreary; Zachues Calhoon from Melissa Calhoon; Minnie Nelson from William G. Nelson; Jessie Wilson from Trefern Wilson; and Emily C. Tingler from John D. Tingler, the judge having given custody of the children in the latter case to the mother. (12/22/1903) A Divorce Suit. In the district court yesterday Josephine Owens filed a suit asking divorce from her husband, William Owens. They were married at Dodge City, Kansas, in April, 1900, and Mrs. Owen says William left her the following June and has since refused to live with her. She asks divorce and restoration of her maiden name, Josephine Oliver. Lamb & Hoagland are attorneys for the plaintiff. (12/24/1903) Alleges Extreme Cruelty. In the district court yesterday Mrs. Annie L. Redmond filed a suit praying for a divorce from her husband F.L. Redmond. They were married in Oklahoma City June 13, 1901, and Mrs. Redmond alleges her husband abandoned her the following November. Extreme cruelty and failure to provide are also alleged. Mrs. Redmond asks divorce and restoration of her maiden name, Annie L. Miller. E.J. Giddings is her attorney.