Divorce News and Records, Allen Co., Indiana

Some of the cases listed were dismissed and others resulted in divorce decrees.

1873

Fort Wayne Weekly Sentinel, divorces unless otherwise noted.

Fort Wayne Gazette Jan-Jun 1873

• 01 Jan 1873 Lydia McBride vs. John McBride
• 01 Jan 1873 Matilda A. Vail vs. George C. Vail, Common Pleas Court, Case File
• 04 Jan 1873 Eunice E. Cruthers vs. Franklin Cruthers, pending, Circuit Court, Case File
• 07 Jan 1873 Circuit court:
  • Elizabeth Bennett vs. Jos. Bennett, divorce granted
  • Jennie Bradburn vs. John Bradburn, divorce granted
    [17 Sep 1872, Circuit Court, Case File, Case File]
• 16 Jan 1873 Rebecca Hughes & Elisha Marshall, adultery, acquitted
• 18 Jan 1873 Elisha Marshall & Rebecca Hughes, adultery, acquitted

• 05 Feb 1873 Anna L. Dillon vs. James C. Dillon
• 06 Feb 1873 Salena Kennerk vs. John Kennerk
• 06 Feb 1873 John H. Nichols vs. Emeline A. Nichols, dismissed
• 11 Feb 1873 Pamela Calvert vs. John Calvert, change of venue granted to Adams County, John to pay $50 for support.
• 11 Feb 1873 Catherine H. Kuhne vs. Joseph H. Kuhne, dismissed
• 11 Feb 1873 Kimmel vs. Kimmel, dismissed
• 11 Feb 1873 Cruthers vs. Cruthers, dismissed
• 13 Feb 1873 Abraham Bassford vs. Mary E. Bassford, divorce refused
• [13 Feb 1873] Lucia Wheelock vs. Russell T. Wheelock, Common Pleas Court, Case File
• [14 Feb 1873] Sarah C. Bachman vs. Samuel C. Bachman, Common Pleas Court, Case File, Case File

• 05 Mar 1873 Catherine Bear vs. Adam Bear
• 11 Mar 1873 Hower vs. Hower, dismissed
• 11 Mar 1873 Sesson vs. Sesson, dismissed
• 12 Mar 1873 William H. Harrison vs. Laura Harrison
• 12 Mar 1873 Erastus Winters vs. Mary Winters, Common Pleas Court, Case File
• 25 Mar 1873 Clara E. Welsheimer vs. William F. Welsheimer, divorce granted, Case File

• 13 May 1873 Simonin vs. Simonin, dismissed
• 18 May 1873 Jacobs vs. Jacobs
• 23 May 1873 Degitz vs. Degitz
• 27 May 1873 Burns vs. Burns, divorce granted
• 28 May 1873 Bear vs. Bear, dismissed
• 28 May 1873 West vs. West, dismissed

• 19 Jul 1873 Francis H. Case vs. Jennie Case, divorce [Circuit Court, Case File]
• 29 Jul 1873 From this date I hereby forbid any person from trusting or harboring my wife as I will pay no bills of her contracting from date. W. S. Moon, Fort Wayne.

• 28 Aug 1873 Sarah Graham vs. George Graham, divorce

• 15 Sep 1873 Elizabeth E. Freeman vs. Samuel P. Freeman, divorce
• 16 Sep 1873 Freeman vs. Freeman, dismissed
• 18 Sep 1873 Divorce Doings. A few people whom God is supposed to have joined together but now desire Judge Lowry to part them asunder. They think that marriage is decidedly not what it is cracked up to be.
  • Albers vs. Albers. Amelia J. Albers united her fortunes with Peter Albers on the 10th day of April, 1868 but Peter forgot his marriage vows at once and immediately abandoned his wife, since which time he has utterly failed to provide for her as he ought. As he is worse than no husband at all, a divorce is prayed for.
    [26 Jul 1873 Ann J. Albers vs. Peter R. Albers, Circuit Court, Case File]
  • Vail vs. Vail. George C. Vail and Matilda A. Vail were united in bonds matrimonial at Michigan City on December 30, 1858. All went smoothly until March 10, 1871, when, as the wife claims, her husband deserted her and three children, since which time he has utterly failed to provide for them. She, therefore, prays a divorce together with the custody of the children and suitable alimony.
  • Graham vs. Graham. The notorious George Graham, whose character was portrayed at length in the Gazette last spring is on the docket of the Circuit Court in the role of defendant in a divorce suit. George has not only been guilty of larceny, horse stealing, forgery, embezzlements, confidence games, obtaining money under false pretences, assault and battery, and other similar eccentricities, but has preached, delivered temperance lectures, studied law, been a telegrapher operator and an engineer. He has been acquitted of numerous crimes, been declared insane by an Allen County jury, but now languishes in the Michigan City penitentiary. Among other incidents of his career was his marriage which occurred in December, 1872. His wife, Sarah Graham, complains in the Circuit Court that he has deserted and abandoned her, failing to provide for her and her child, and has finally been convicted of an infamous crime. Wherefore, she prays Judge Lowry to put asunder what God has (or supposed to have - a 'Squire was the instrument) joined together and also wants custody of the child.
  • Rush vs. Rush. Avilia C. Rush rushed into matrimony with Henry C. Rush on the first day of September, 1865. Ere many moons has elapsed Henry rushed away from Avilia, and the latter now rushes into court asking that she be freed from her alliance with Henry.
  • Mellert vs. Mellert. On the third of July, 1868, Joseph and Catherine Mellert were declared man and wife. Joseph now charges that his wife took occasion, on New Year's day 1869, to abandon him, and he wants Judge Lowry to declare them not man and wife.
  • Buchman vs. Buchman. Sarah C. Buchman listened to the soft persuasive tones of Samuel C. Buchman and became his wife on the 11th of September, 1863. On July 19, 1871, he deserted her, and since that time has made no provision whatever for her support. For five years past he has not afforded her adequate support - at least so his wife claims. She charges him with being a habitual drunkard and given to beating her. On July 19, 1871, she says that he struck her and kicked her and put her out of the house, since which time she has had to work for herself and two children, and has suffered much persecution from him. This sort of thing is not particularly pleasing to Mrs. Buchman and she prays a decree of divorce and other relief.
  • Schroeder vs. Schroeder. Margaret Schroeder's experiences as the wife of Henry Schroeder has not given her an exalted idea of the happiness attending a connubial state. She says that Henry is quarrelsome; that he won't eat what is set before him; that he iften pretends to take poison and in other ways renders her, his loving wife, miserable. Three years have they lived together. Mrs. S. wants a divorce and a little slice of Henry's estate in the shape of alimony.
  • Donahue vs. Donahue. Theresa B. Donahue finds Patrick Donahue a poor excuse of a husband. During the past two years she says that a ham, a calico dress and a baby have been all that came into the house. Patrick is also charged with abuse and failure to provide. Patrick's hotel doesn't suit Theresa, who sighs to be freed from the obnoxious union.
  • Case vs. Case. As for Frank C. Case he bitterly regrets the day when in the quiet little village of Kalamazoo he was united to a black eyed charmer whose surname is Jennie. This bewitching female is charged by her husband with neglect and unfaithfulness, with being the constant associate of lewd women and base men, and an inmate of houses of prostitution in Fort Wayne, Toledo, Logansport and other places. That this isn't the kind of life God intended the partner of a man's bosom to lead is quite evident to the plaintiff's mind, and he hopes that it will be equally so to the court's mind who will therefore have no hesitancy in granting complainant's prayer.
  • Dunbar vs. Dunbar. Susan Dunbar complains that on the 11th of May, 1867, she was married to David E. Dunbar, with whom she dwelt as a true, loving, and affectionate wife. Not so David, who was as Susan says, habitually intemperate and given to abuse of her. She also charges him with failure to provide for her as was his duty and wants the court to tell her if these things are not enough cause for a divorce, what is. [Circuit Court, Case File]
  • Water vs. Water. Esther Water and James B. Water were "spliced" on the 8th of April, 1851. In April, 1868, a complaint sets forth that James B. deserted his better half and has ever since failed to provide for her. She has meanwhile been compelled to labor for the support of herself and five children, and as this state of things does not suit her, she would like to have the court free her from her legal union with her fickle husband.
  • Shaffer vs. Shaffer. The case of Geo. Shaffer vs. Rebecca Shaffer, who were married on November 18, 1862 in Stark County, Ohio, was dismissed at plaintiff's costs on Monday. The complaint charges the defendant with bad temper, fits of abuse, and with falsely charging her husband with unfaithfulness.
  • Loose vs. Loose. Fred W. Loose induced a maiden called Christiana to adopt his name on July 15, 1851, a matter nearly a quarter of a century ago. The plaintiff now complains that Christiana broke loose from his protecting care 16 years ago, since which time he has been watching and waiting for her but in vain. As this sort of thing is becoming monotonous, Judge Lowry is desired to cut loose the bonds matrimonial that bind the complainant to his perambulating Christiana, leaving him free to be tied loose to some other blushing maiden.
  • Brown vs. Brown. Margaret and Jos. Brown began to fight the battles of life together in the city of Baltimore in March, 1859. After the lapse of one year, Jos. Left his spouse and for nine years remained away, making no provision for her maintainance. For five years plaintiff lived at Baltimore when she emigrated to Hoosierdom, dwelling for four years at Laporte, Indiana with a brother and sister, meanwhile supporting herself. In September 1868, defendant returned to her side and the twain soon moved to the metropolis (Fort Wayne). In October or November, however, defendant again deserted her, since which time she has heard nothing from him. She has been compelled to work for a living during these periods and has at all times deported herself properly. Mrs. Brown thinks she ought to have a divorce.
    [5 Jul 1873 Margret Brown vs. Joseph Brown, Circuit Court, Case File]
  • Dyer vs. Dyer. Ira J. Dyer complains that on the 4th day of May, 1869, he took unto himself Martha E. Dyer and lived with her until about December 20, 1870, during which time he procured here all the necessaries of life and treated her as a kind and indulgent husband; that on December 26, 1870, she deserted plaintiff and has ever since refused to live with him. Furthermore, affiant is ignorant of her place of residence and the circumstances are such as to render a reconciliation impossible. A decree of divorce will suit Ira. [Circuit Court, Case File]
  • Kimmel vs. Kimmel. Henry Kimmel's affidavit asserts that on September 12, 1868, he was untied to his present spouse, Margaret J. Kimmer; that he lived with her as husband until January, 1871, defendant having previously borne him a female child; that about that time he was rendered helpless by rheumatism, when his wife cruelly had him taken to the County Poor House and then to the St. Joseph's Hospital where he was cared for until his recovery; that while complainant was sick, defendant moved away to her sister's, the Quicksells, living on Broadway and taking all of his furniture; that defendant took two trips to Illinois while plaintiff was at the hospital but never came to see him. Plaintiff complains of studious neglect on the part of his unloving spouse, but says he was always kind, loving and generous towards her. A divorce and the custody of the child is what Henry most desires.
  • Cruthers vs. Cruthers. Eunice E. Cruthers celebrated New Year's Day 1872 by getting married to Franklin Cruthers, and an unlucky day it was for her, as appears from her complaint on file in the Clerk's office. But although Eunice was always kind and obedient towards Franklin; but he would get drunk every chance he got and come home and abuse and shamefully mistreat plaintiff, use vulgar and obscene language, and threaten to knock her down and kick her out of the house and frighten her, and accuse her of being unfaithful and call her hard names, and do everything in fact to make Eunice curse her fate. Defendant is also charged with driving her from her home under threats of violence on a certain day in 1872, since which time plaintiff has lived off her relatives, as defendant will not support her. Eunice also says that defendant has circulated false reports to the effect that complainant has been guilty of adultery etc. As Franklin is worth $8,000 or $9,000, Eunice wants a decree of divorce and alimony in $2,500. But Franklin takes a different view of the matter. He says he has always been kind and loving to Eunice but that she has been unfaithful towards him, and charges her with frequent acts of adultery with one Milton Hutton. Plaintiff in the answer to the cross complaint denies the charges of her husband.
  • Nungester vs. Nungester. Martha J. Nungester abandoned her maiden name on the 31st of October and took up with Peter Nungester for better or worse until death-or Judge Lowry do them part. However Martha feels, Peter says it was for worse; Martha lived with him until November 10, 1871 when she without cause abandoned him and refused to return. Peter would be relieved if he had a decree of divorce in his pocket. Defendant denies each and every allegation which Peter makes.
  • Rudolph vs. Rudolph. Frederick Rudolph married Caroline at Pittsburg (sic) on September 5, 1871 under the impression created by Caroline and her friends and relations that she had been an honest, virtuous and industrious maiden. But Frederick found out too late that all is not gold that glitters. Instead of being all his fancy had painted her, he says Caroline was just the reverse. In fact he charges that she at the time of her marriage with him was the mother of two illegitimate children, the father of whom is to Frederick unknown. (He would probably like to know him.) When plaintiff made this startling discovery he was naturally as mad as a March hare. He says he was inveigled into matrimony by fraud, and now he would like Judge Lowry to help him out of it.
  • Godfrey vs. Godfrey. Jefferson Godfrey and Sarah Godfrey were made one in the neighboring village of Lafayette. From May Day, 1870 to New Years, 1873, the parties dwelt together, but at that time defendant (as Sarah says) abandoned her. She also sets forth that Jefferson has often struck and beat her and neglected to provide her with food and raiment. She does not want to have anything more to do with Jefferson, and would therefore like a divorce. A demurrer was filed, after which plaintiff submitted an amended complaint, charging defendant among other things, with vile and abusive language, etc.
  • Laubscher vs. Laubscher. Mary Louisa Laubscher was married to Ludwig Laubscher on October 15, 1872. They lived together until in April 1873 when the petition alleges that she was compelled to leave Ludwig and return to the home of her father, Dr. John M. Jones, where she has since dwelt. The affiant says that they had scarcely lived together two months, when Ludwig began a course of the most cruel and abusive treatment towards her, calling her "wench", "liar", "cook", and "servant". Further she says that he frequently struck, beat and injured her; that he has pointed a loaded pistol at her, also taken medicine, pretending to poison himself. Louisa also charges that Ludwig maltreated her when she was expecting to become a mother. She further asserts that her husband frequently gets drunk and is a bad man generally. She cannot live with him longer. She, therefore, desires a divorce with suitable alimony. Defendant answers that Louisa's statements are false; that her physical condition caused her to be jealous and irritable and that her alleged grievances have no existence excepting in her diseased imagination.
  • Steel vs. Steel. In the case of Almira Steel vs. Jacob Steel the papers are very voluminous. In 1860 the plaintiff was the blooming widow of Wm. Ereel, deceased. By Ereel she had seven children, three of them minors. Defendant, to induce her to marry him, promised to build her a home and to support her children. But she declares that she had to provide the home and that Jacob so abused her offspring that she had to send them away while yet of tender years. She charges that defendant neglected her while sick and refused to hire her a girl or give her any money although she was in an infirm condition. She further alleges that Jacob has converted her property to his own use. A divorce and $1,500 alimony are asked for.
  • Layman vs. Layman. The case of John Layman vs. Rosanna Layman was begun in 1870. John charges that he married Rosanna on February 17, 1869, but she has at all times refused to cohabit with him. He charges that in March, 1869, she committed adultery in St. Joseph township with one Theodore Johnson, wherefore he prays a divorce.
  • Thurston vs. Thurston. Ebenezer H. Thurston complains that his wife, Julia F., was married to him on May 1, 1866, at Utica, New York, and abandoned him on May 1, 1870, wherefore a divorce is asked.
  • McBride vs. McBride. Lydia McBride says she was married to John McBride on September 12, 1853, and lived with him until October 20, 1868, when he abandoned her. She prays for a divorce and custody of three minor children.
  • Ryckman vs. Ryckman. Abraham and Mary Ryckman were married on February 14, 1865, and lived together until October 16, 1870, when defendant ran away to the state of Illinois with a young man (name unknown); Mary is also charged with having mistreated Abraham's children by a former wife. A divorce would render Abe happy.
  • McKinzie vs. McKinzie. Anna M. McKinzie and William F. McKinzie began to trot in double harness on January 18, 1870, since which time their union has been blessed with two children. She says that William has kicked her, and slapped her and cuffed her and called her bad names, and failed to provide for her and her children, and frequently left her for a week at a time and got drunk and indulged in other eccentricities not considered the proper thing for a man who has a loving wife as Anna claims to be. The complainant thinks she ought to have a divorce and custody of the infant, and hopes that Judge Lowry will take the same view of the matter.

• 01 Oct 1873 Catherine Schroeder vs. Henry Schroeder, defendant to pay $50 for use of plaintiff.
• 05 Oct 1873 Sarah Graham vs. George Graham, divorce granted, custody of child awarded to her.
• 10 Oct 1873 Francis H. Case vs. Jennie E. Case, divorce, cross complaint. [Circuit Court, Case File]
• 11 Oct 1873 John Irving vs. Malissa Irving, dismissed.
• 15 Oct 1873 Anna L. Dillon vs. Jas. C. Dillon, continued.
• 15 Oct 1873 George M. Ward vs. Laura Ward, dismissed.
• 15 Oct 1873 Catherine Schroeder vs. Henry Schroeder, divorce granted, $75 alimony.
• 17 Oct 1873 Tracy Donahue vs. Patrick Donahue, dismissed.
• 17 Oct 1873 Abraham Ryckman vs. Mary Ryckman, dismissed.
• 22 Oct 1873 FrancisH. Case vs. Jennie Case, divorce granted. [Circuit Court, Case File]
• 26 Oct 1873 Arilia Rush vs. Henry C. Rush, divorce granted.
• 31 Oct 1873 Susan Dunbar vs. David E. Dunbar, divorce granted.
• 31 Oct 1873 Peter Nungester vs. Martha J. Nungster, dismissed.
• 31 Oct 1873 Sarah Godfrey vs. Jefferson Godfrey, dismissed.
• 31 Oct 1873 George Shaffer vs. Rebecca Shaffer, dismissed.
• 31 Oct 1873 Mary C. Freeman vs. Samuel P. Freeman, dismissed.

• 01 Nov 1873 Margaret Brown vs. Joseph Brown, divorce granted.
• [06 Nov 1873] Mary J. Forrest vs. William Forrest, Circuit Court, Case File

• 04 Dec 1873 Frederick Rudolph vs. Caroline Rudolph, continued.
• 04 Dec 1873 Anna L. Dillon vs. James C. Dillon, continued.
• 04 Dec 1873 Anna M. McKinzie vs. William F. McKinzie, dismissed.
• 04 Dec 1873 Elsie Bogue vs. Daniel Bogue, dismissed.
  [28 Jan 1874 Elsie A. Bogue vs. Daniel B. Bogue, Circuit Court, Case File]
  children: Clara Bogue, age 9, and Charles Bogue, age 3
• 06 Dec 1873 Frederick Rudolph vs, Caroline Rudolph, dismissed.
• 06 Dec 1873 Ira J. Dyer vs. Martha E. Dyer, dismissed.
• 06 Dec 1873 Theresa B. Donahue vs. Patrick Donahue, continued.

Some of the cases listed were dismissed and others resulted in divorce decrees.