Notices of Divorce Fillings and Grants were published in local newspaper. (Also at least one breach of promise to marry suit also was reported) There were also notices that a man would not be responsible for his wife's debts published. Here are a few that have be extracted from Baltimore County Newspapers
|ALLEN, DAVID C. B.||MARY P.||A petition has been filed by David C. B. Allen, of the Second district, through his counsel, M. W. Offutt, asking a divorce from Mary P. Allen.||24 June 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|ALLEN, DAVID C. B.||MARY P.||A bill in equity was filed by David C. B. Allen through Milton W. Offutt, attorney, against Mary P. Allen, asking for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The bill alleges that the parties were married on August 9, 1883, at Granite, 2d district, by Rev. L. L. Brown; that they lived together three years, when the plaintiff left the defendant because of her unfaithfulness.||24 June 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|ALLEN, DAVID B. C.||MARY||In the equity case of David B. C. Allen against Mary P. Allen (divorce proceedings), Judge Watters, at Towsontown Tuesday, signed a decree, entitling the plaintiff to the relief asked in the bill of complaint because the defendant failed to appear; but as it does not certainly appear to what relief he is entitled to, leave is granted the plaintiff to take testimony to support his allegations.||14 Oct 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|Allen, David C. B.||Mary P.||Judge Burke has signed a decree a vinculo matrimonii in the case of David C. B. Allen against Mary P. Allen.||18 Nov 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|BAKER -HOLBERT, BAKER Isaiah||HOLBERT, Mrs Elizabeth||Breach Of Promise. In the Baltimore county Circuit Court on Wednesday last the case of Mrs. Elizabeth Holbert vs. Isaiah Baker, action for breach of promise of marriage, came up for trial. Both parties reside in the 11th district of this county. Mrs. Holbert asks $10,000 damages as compensation for her blighted affections and the youthful (?) Isaiah takes issue wit the lady and has determined to “fight it out on that line” if it takes seventy-four years more of his life to see himself “righted.” The trial was before a jury and eminent counsel were engaged on both sides. The case occupied the attention of the Court the entire day and was not concluded at the time of adjournment, the list of witnesses being very large.||18 Oct 1873||Baltimore County Union|
|BAKER -HOLBERT, BAKER Isaiah||HOLBERT, Eliabeth||Elizabeth Holbert vs. Isaiah Baker; action fpr breach of promise of marriage; tried some time since and verdict for plaintiff for $1,000; motion by defendant for new trial argued and overruled.||1 Nov 1873||Baltimore County Union|
|BAUBLITTS, Jeremiah||Mary Jane||An agreement between Jeremiah Baublitts and his wife, Mary Jane Baublitts was filed Wednesday in the Circuit Court. They agree to live apart and the former agrees to pay his wife $25 per month for her support.||6 Aug 1896||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|BAYNE, Thomas J.||Emma T.||Mrs. Emma T. Bayne, by John F. Gontrum and John S. Biddison, attorneys, has filed a complaint asking for a partial divorce from her husband, Thomas J. Bayne who she charges with having abandoned her February 14th, 1897, three days after their marriage.||14 May 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|BEAVER, Robert A.||Gertrude V.||Robert A. Beaver, by O. Parker Baker, has asked for a divorce from Gertrude V. Beaver, whom he charges with having eloped with Sidney Vaughn. The latter is named as correspondent||April 30, 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat,|
|BECKER, Charles C.||Elizabeth||Elizabeth Becker, through her attorneys, Sydney Hall and Joseph W. Bristor, has applied for an absolute divorce from her husband, Charles H. Becker, and has obtained an injunction to restrain him from selling or removing her property pending a determination of the case.||30 July 1898||Baltimore County Democrat|
|BELL, John||Clara Virginia||John Bell, by Osborne I. Yellot, his attorney, has filed a bill for an absolute divorce from his wife, Clara Virginia Bell, to whom he was married in January, 1897.||5 March 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|BENSON, JACOB E.||ANNIE||Jacob E. Benson, of the upper end of the county, has filed a bill in court here praying an absolute divorce from his wife, Annie Benson. The bill alleges infidelity as the cause.||17 Nov 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|BENSON, JACOB E.||ANNIE||Judge Burke has signed a decree for an absolute divorce in the case of Jacob E. Benson against Annie Benson.||24 Nov 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|BEYER, NICHOLAS||BARBARA||The case of Beyer vs. Beyer, wherein the plaintiff, Mrs. Barbara Beyer, asked for a divorce from her husband, Nicholas Beyer, has come to a happy termination by the complete reconciliation of the parties. Carrington and Schmit appeared for the plaintiff and John F. Gonrum for the defendant.||8 Dec 1888||Baltimore County Democrat|
|Biggs, Wm. J.||Ellen A.||Mrs. Ellen A. Biggs, by James W. Denny and William S. Keech, her attorneys, has filed a bill asking a partial divorce from Wm. J. Biggs, of Mt. Washington. An injunction has been issued to restrain Mr. Biggs from withdrawing some money on deposit in the Savings Bank of Baltimore in the joint names of himself and his wife.||27 Jan 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|Biggs, Wm. J.||Ellen A.||Wm J. Biggs sued Wm. T. James, his father-in-law, for $10,000 damages in the Superior Court of Baltimore, claiming that Mr. James has prejudiced the mind and alienated the affections of Mrs. Biggs, and had advised her to abandon her husband and to institute divorce proceedings against him. The suit was brought through Thomas W. Brundige, attorney. Mr. Biggs is employed as a gardener on the Jenkins estate at Mt. Washington, this county. Mr. James is superintendent for the Matthai Manufacturing Company, and lives at Mount Winans, 13th district. Mr. Biggs married the daughter of Mr. James thirteen years ago, and they have three children. About three months ago Mrs. Biggs left her husband and went to live with her father. Subsequently she instituted divorce proceedings in the Baltimore County Court, but she is now living with her husband, and it is said the divorce suit will be dismissed.||24 March 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|BLIZZARD, CHARLES A.||MEDORA A.||Medora A. Blizzard, through Richard Bryan, attorney, has filed a bill for absolute divorce from Charles A. Blizzard, on the ground of cruelty. It sets forth that the parties were married June 2?, 1893, and that they reside on a farm, containing forty-five acres, located near Woodensbarg, the property of the plaintiff, and Matilda A. Haynes, her daughter by a former husband. It is alleged that the defendant drove the plaintiff from the farm. The court is asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from entering upon the farm or removing anything therefrom. Judge Fowler ordered the injunction issued.||2 June 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|BRANDAU, Edward F.||Hannah||The court has passed a decree granting to Hannah E. Brandau an absolute divorce from Edward F. Brandau, giving her the custody of their two minor children.||21 Sept 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|BOYCE, James||Harrison, Sallie||BOYCE, JAMES - HARRISON, SALLIE The ante-nuptial contract made between Mr. James Boyce and Mrs. Sallie K. Harrison was put on record in the office of the Superior Court in Baltimore on the 26th inst. By the terms of the contract each party relinquishes all claim to the other’s property, and Mr. Boyce agrees that in case of his death his widow shall receive $600 annually as long as she remains unmarried. For this purpose $15,000 are to be invested. Mrs. Boyce relinquishes whatever claims she might have as a dower or as a widow.||30 Aug 1890||Maryland Journal|
|BROWN Alexander D.||Laura J.||BROWN, ALEXANDER D. LAURA J. On Wednesday, 4th inst., a judgment against Alexander D. Brown, of Brooklandwood, was obtained by Mrs. Laura J. Brown and Charles Bosley, trustee, for $6,938.75, on account of non-payment of a certain sum of money agreed to be paid by the defendant monthly for her maintenance and support. The sum was to have been paid in monthly installments of $250 each, but the defendant has not paid any money since July, 1887. A suit for divorce is now pending and testimony has been taken by the Court Commissioner, whose charges of $400 remain unpaid. Application has been made to the Court by Mrs. Brown asking that her husband be compelled to pay the fee. Mrs. Brown appeared in Court accompanied by her counsel, Messrs. Oliver F. Hack and John Grason, and Mr. Charles Bosley, her trustee. There was no appearance of counsel entered for the defendant, Mr. Alex. D. Brown.||7 Dec 1889||Maryland Journal|
|BURGESS, Henry||Annie C.||BURGESS, ANNIE C. - Judge Fowler and Burke signed an order dismissing the suit of Annie C. Burgess for a divorce from her husband, Henry Burgess.||31 Aug 1901||The Democrat|
|BYER, NICHOLAS||BARBARA||Jude Watters on Monday signed a decree of divorce in the case of Barbara Byer against Nicholas Byer.||14 Oct 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|CHAPPELL, Thomas C.||Mary Ball||Judge Burke has filed an opinion in the equity proceedings of Thomas C. Chappell against Mary Ball Chappell. The opinion is on the petition of the plaintiff, which was filed April 25th, in which he asked the court for leave to dismiss his bill of complaint. Judge Burke decides that upon the payment by the plaintiff of $2?0 to the defendant's counsel, and of the costs of the suit, leave will be granted to dismiss the bill, the defendant to have the right to institute such proceedings against the plaintiff as she may be advised is proper.||15 June 1895||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|CHAPPELL, Thomas C.||Mary Ball||Mrs. Mary B Chappell has filed a bill for divorce against Thomas C. Chappell, her husband, after dismissing all the proceedings heretofore filed in the case. The bill also asks for alimony. The bill charges cruel treatment, desertion, and general bad conduct on the part of her husband.||29 June 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|CHAPPELL, Thomas C.||Mary Ball||CHAPPELL, THOMAS & MARY BALL Thomas C. Chappell has filed exceptions in the order of the court passed July 26 (1895) in the divorce proceedings of Thomas C. Chappell against Mary Ball Chappell.||10 Aug 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|CHAPPELL, Thomas C.||Mary Ball||By Chief Judge McSherry - Thomas C. Chappell vs. Mary Bell Chappell. Six appeals in one record. The Court of Appeals severely arraigned Mr. Chappell for his defense of his case, and says the numerous and unnecessary motions were to embarrass and prolong the case between himself and wife, and finds for the wife in all the orders of court below appealed from and remands the cause.||8 Jan 1898||Baltimore County Democrat|
|CHAPPELL, Thomas C.||Mary Ball||Thomas C. Chappell has filed in Court a bill of complaint in the nature of a bill of review, in which he asks the court to set aside a number of orders, decrees, executions and attachments in connection with the proceedings in which he sought to be divorced from his wife, Mary Ball Chappell. Mr. Chappell's application is based upon a statement that his financial standing was not correctly represented in a petition filed by Mrs. Chappell, in which she said that her husband had an annual income of $12,000, which he denies.||17 Sept 1898||Baltimore county Democrat|
|CHATTERTON, FIFIELD S.||CHATTERTON, MARY||Mary Chatterton, by Frank X. Ward, attorney, has applied for a partial divorce from Fifield S. Chatterton.||17 Dec 1892||Baltimore County Democrat|
|COCKEY, SAMUEL B.||LAURA||On Wednesday last Judge Burke filed an opinion and decree of court in the divorce proceedings of Laura Cockey against Samuel B. Cockey, in which he refuses to grant a divorce to the parties. The bill for a divorce a mensa et thoro was filed on May 10, 1892, by Mrs. Cockey, on the ground of alleged cruelty and abandonment. Mr. Cockey filed a cross bill, denying the allegations of his wife and asking for a divorce a vinvulo matrimonii on the ground of alleged infidelity. Mrs. Cockey filed an answer to the cross bill denying the charges contained therein. Judge Burke, in his opinion, says: “The bond of marriage cannot be dissolved upon the charge of infidelity without involving both the innocent and the guilty in dishonor and disgrace. The shame which attaches to the guilty parent will be felt by the children for life, and, therefore, justice, humanity and sound policy demand that the evidence of the wife’s guilt should be clear and satisfactory. I pronounce the testimony of Bowen, Pearce and Cox to be unsatisfactory and insufficient, and, therefore, the cross bill, which rests on their evidence, must be dismissed.” Judge Burke concluded that the proof is not sufficient to warrant the decree asked for by Mrs. Cockey, and orders both bills dismissed. The questions of counsel fees and of alimony were reserved for further action. The plaintiff is required to pay the costs in the case.||19 May 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|DAIGART, JOHN||MINNIE||John Daigart, by John F. Gontrum, attorney, has applied for an absolute divorce from his wife, Minnie Daigart, to whom he was married in 1885.||30 June 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|DUFFY, Michael||Colinda M.||Judges Fowler and Burke have united in an opinion in the divorce proceedings of Colinda M. Duffy against Michael Duffy, announcing that they will grant Mrs. Duffy a partial divorce, as prayed. The court in its opinion says that the charge of cruel treatment brought by Mrs. Duffy against her husband is fully sustained by the evidence. The court will also require the defendant to pay $250 counsel fee to plaintiff's attorneys and to allow the plaintiff $40 a month alimony. The case was argued before the court by Messrs. D. G. McIntosh and James J. Lindsay for the plaintiff, and Messrs. T. Wallis Blakistone and R. R. Boarman for the defendant.||March 12, 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|EISENOUR, PAUL||MINA||Mr. C. B. Slingluff, attorney for Paul Eisenour, filed a bill in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, on the 16th inst. Praying for an absolute divorce from his wife, Mina Eisenour. The complainant alleges that they were married in 1878, at Reutlingen, Wurtemberg; that in 1880 the plaintiff, in order to better his fortunes, left Germany for the United States; that his wife refused to accompany him, and has since refused to come over to him, although he has written requesting her to do so, and has remitted money to pay the expense of her passage.||21 Dec 1889||Maryland Journal|
|ERVIN, WILLIAM J.||CARRIE ELIZABETH||Carrie Elizabeth Ervin has also filed a bill of complaint, asking a partial divorce from William J. Ervin, to whom she was married in December last.||2 Sept 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|ERVIN, M. J.||CARRIE||The divorce proceeding instituted by Carrie Elizabeth Ervin against M. J. Ervin have been entered settled by agreement of the counsel on both sides.||30 Sept 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|FAUTH, Charles||Mary||Mary Fauth, by her attorney, William E. Hoffman, has filed a bill of complaint against her husband, Charles Fauth, and asks an absolute divorce.||19 Oct 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|FISCHER, CONRAD||MARIA||Maria Fischer, by C. Bohn Slingluff, attorney, has filed a bill for a divorce a mensua et thoro from Conrad Fischer. The bill alleges that the couple were married in Baltimore, October 7, 1883, and that they have since resided in the Eleventh district. Cruel treatment is alleged. It is charged that the conduct of the defendant towards the plaintiff has been worse since the arrival from Germany of the defendant’s niece.||22 July 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|FISCHER, CONRAD||MARIA||In the divorce case of Maria Fischer against Conrad Fischer the court has passed an order requiring the defendant to pay $50 as a fee to plaintiff’s counsel and $2.50 a week alimony pend a decision in the case.||29 July 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|FISCHER, CONRAD||MARIA||An agreement has been reached in the divorce case of Maria Fischer against Conrad Fischer, and the bill of complaint has been dismissed.||29 July 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|FLANIGAN, Patrick||Elizabeth||Mr. John F. Gontrum, attorney for Mrs. Elizabeth Flanigan, on the 19th inst. filed a bill in the Circuit Court for Baltimore county asking for a divorce a mensa et thoro, from her husband Patrick Flanigan. The bill states that they were married in 1868 and that he has failed to contribute to her support and has at various times ill treated her and that his conduct has been vicious and unbearable. The respondent is in jail under a commitment for being drunk and disorderly.||12 Jan 1889||Maryland Journal|
|FOWBLE, JOHN THOMAS||FOWBLE, MARY ELIZABETH||Judge Burke has signed a decree divorcing John Thomas Fowble, lunatic, from Mary Elizabeth Fowble, the alleged marriage being void by reason of the insanity of the said Fowble. The costs of the suit are to be paid out of the estate of Fowble by his committee. Samuel S. Cole.||24 Dec 1892||Baltimore County Democrat|
|FOWBLE, Peter||Irene||FOWBLE, PETER IRENE: Judge Burke has signed a decree divorcing Irene Fowble from her husband, Peter Fowble, absolutely, giving her the custody of her child, Grace Fowble, and requiring Peter Fowble to pay the cost of the proceedings.||1 Apr 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|FRANCES, JOHN CARVILLE||MARY MAGDALENA||John Carville Frances, through his counsel, James J. Lindsay and Albert W. Perrie, filed a petition in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court here, for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his wife, Mary Magdalena Frances, to produce in court the nine months old daughter of the petitioner, so that its custody may be determined.||4 Nov 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|GABLE,Charles H.||Emma||GABLE, CHARLES H. EMMA Mrs. Emma Gable, through her attorney, Mr. Wm. T. Roberts, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on the 2d inst. An application asking for a divorce a mensa et thoro against her husband, Charles H. Gable, on the grounds of neglect, cruelty and abusive treatment on the part of the husband; also, that the nine-year-old daughter, issue of the marriage, be awarded to plaintiff’s custody.||7 Dec 1889||Maryland Journal|
|GARDNER, JOHN W.||GARDNER, ANNIE C.||The object of this suit is to procure a decree for divorce a vinculo matrimonii of the plaintiff from the defendant. The bill states that the plaintiff and defendant were married February 16th, 1871, and continued to reside together in Baltimore county until about September, 1891, when the defendant abandoned the plaintiff and went to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, with on Thomas Deweese, a married man, but the plaintiff continued to reside in Baltimore county and now resides therein. That before said September, 1891, she, the defendant, had been guilty of adultery with the said Deweese; but which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff since defendant abandoned him. That by the said marriage the plaintiff had five children, four of whom are living, viz: a boy twenty years old, a girl nineteen years old, a girl seventeen years old, and a girl ten years old. That the plaintiff's conduct has always been proper and above reproach; that said abandonment is final and without hope of reconciliation. That the defendant is a non resident. It is therefore this 2d day of December, A.D. 1892, ordered by the Court that the plaintiff, by causing a copy of this order to be inserted in some newspaper published in Baltimore county once in each of four successive weeks before the 2d day of January, 1893, give notice to said non resident defendant of the object and substance of the bill, and warning her to appear in this Court in person or by solicitor, on or before the 18th day of January, next, to show cause, if any she has, why a decree ought not to pass as prayed. Lewis M. Bacon, Clerk. True Copy - Test: Lewis M. Bacon, Clerk.||10 Dec 1892||Baltimore County Democrat|
|GARDNER, John W.||Annie||GARDNER, JOHN W. ANNIE The court has passed a decree absolutely divorcing John W. Gardner from Annie C. Gardner.||11 Feb 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|GARELS, JOHN||MARY||Mary Garels, of this county, by Edward C. Carrington, attorney, has applied for a partial divorce from John Garels. She also asks that he may be enjoined from disposing of his property until further order of the court, and that she may have the custody of their two children.||2 Sept 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|Goodrich, George A.||Matilda||Mrs. Matilda Goodrich has filed a bill of absolute divorce from her husband, George A. Goodrich, on the ground of desertion, lasting over three years. The plaintiff avers that there are eight children, the issue of the marriage, four of whom are living with her, while the remaining four, as she is advised, are with the defendant in Washington, D.C. She asks to be awarded custody of all the children.||17 March 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|GOODRICH, George A||Matilda||GOODRICH, MATILDA & GEORGE A decree was passed divorcing Matilda E. Goodrich, absolutely from George A. Goodrich.||6 July 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|GORE, ROBERT S.||ARABELLA||Tuesday, Feb. 16 (1886). - Arabella Gore filed a bill for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from her husband, Robert S. V. Gore, on the ground of alleged cruelty, driving her from home, &c; and also asked that a deed of certain property made to (cannot make out because line folded) plainant might have some means of being allowed support.||20 Feb 1886||Baltimore County Union|
|GRANT, John F. A.||Sallie E.||GRANT, SALLIE E. - Judge Burke signed a decree divorcing Sallie E. Grant from her husband, John F. A. Grant, and giving her the care of her three minor children. The bill in the case was filed on Wednesday July 1st, and charged the defendant with desertion and abandonment. The parties were married in south Carolina in (looks like) 1881, and the defendant deserted his wife and children in October, 189?, in this county, where they were then living.||11 July 1903||The Democrat|
|GUTBODT, George||Elizabeth||Judge Burke has signed a decree in the Circuit Court granting Mrs. Elizabeth Gutbrodt an absolute divorce from her husband, George Gutbrodt, on the ground of desertion.||26 Feb 1898||Baltimore County Democrat|
|HAHN, Adolph||Catharine||Catharine Hahn, by John F. Gontrum, attorney, has applied for an absolute divorce from Adolph Hahn.||21 Sept 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|HARE-YOUNG, Joseph YOUNG||Jane HARE||The Circuit Court was engaged several days this week with the breach of promise of marriage suit instituted by Jane Hare, daughter of Mary E. Hare, against Joseph Young.||6 Apr 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|HERBERT, John G,||Annie M.||Judge Burke has granted an absolute divorce to John G. Herbert from Annie M. Herbert.||April 20, 1895||The Democrat|
|HOLSTON, Joseph S.||Maggie||Mrs. Maggie Holston, by her attorneys, William H. Lawrence and Emanuel W. Herman, has filed a bill of complaint in which she charges her husband, Joseph S. Holston, with having deserted her about twenty years ago and with having recently ceased to make any provision for her support. She does not ask for a divorce. The court has passed a conditional order requiring the defendant to pay his wife $4? a week and to pay her counsel a fee of $50.||21 Sept 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|HOLSTON, Joseph S.||Maggie||An order of court has been passed in the divorce case of Margaret Holston against Joseph Holston, by which the defendant is directed to pay his wife $3 a week alimony while the suit is pending and $?? as a fee to her counsel.||16 Nov 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|ICEMAN, Robert||Carrie V.||A decree has been passed divorcing Robert Iceman absolutely from his wife, Carrie V. Iceman.||April 23, 1898||Baltimore County Democrat,|
|JEAN, DAVID EDWARD||ELLA S.||Ella S. Jean has filed a bill in the County Court for absolute divorce against David Edward Jean on the alleged ground of infidelity. Jean is said to have gone to California.||23 June 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|JONES, LEONARD E.||MARY E.||A bill has been filed in the county court by Mrs. Mary E. Jones through her counsel, G. W. Hume Craig, asking for a divorce from her husband, Leonard E. Jones, a barber of this place. The bill charges cruelty and asks for alimony and the money for the expenses of the suit.||14 July 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|JONES, Reuben||not named||Reuben Jones of Catonsville, who is seventy-one years of age, filed an answer Tuesday to the bill for divorce filed by his young wife. He denies all of her allegations, and states that the cause of her discontent is that she could not secure all of his property.||20 Nov 1897||the Baltimore County Democrat|
|JONES, Reuben||Columbia|| Reuben Jones, by D. G. McIntosh and John Watson, Jr., his attorneys, has filed a cross bill of complaint asking for an absolute divorce from his wife, Columbia Jones, to whom he was married in 1895. He accuses his wife of having an unforgivable temper, and charges that, not long after the marriage, she set about procuring from him as much of his property as possible, and that on his refusal to give her more she became violent and abusive toward him. |
He states that Mrs. Jones and her sister were in the habit of calling him ugly names, and would ask him if he was going to take his dollars with him in his coffin when he died, and that they said the devil was waiting for him when he died. Mr. Jones alleges that in consequences of the indignities heaped on him by his wife and her cruel treatment he was compelled to leave his home, and he claims that the circumstances constitute an abandonment of him by her. Mrs. Jones has previously applied for a partial divorce from her husband.
|27 Nov 1897||Baltimore County Democrat|
|JONES, Reuben||Columbia||In the Circuit Court Monday Judge Burke passed an order in the suit of Mrs. Columbia Jones for a divorce against her husband, Reuben Jones, requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff $10 per week alimony, and $200 counsel fees, unless cause be shown to the contrary on or before January 16. Mrs. Jones alleges that her husband has refused to pay her alimony, as ordered by the court at the first hearing of the case.||1 Jan 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|JONES, Reuben||Columbia||The divorce case of Columbia Jones against Reuben Jones was before Judge Burke Thursday on petition of plaintiff's counsel for an allowance of $250 counsel fee and $10 a week alimony. After the reading of testimony relating to Mr. Jones' financial ability, and argument of counsel, Judge Burke signed an order for $125 counsel fee and $7.50 weekly alimony, pending a decision of the case.||5 Mar 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|KELLUM, W.J.D.||KELLUM, IDA D.||Judge Burke has signed a decree divorcing Ida D. Kellum from W. J. D. Kellum, and giving her custody of her only child, Lottie Kellum, nine years old. Abandonment was given as the cause of the separation.||17 Dec 1892||Baltimore County Democrat|
|KENNEY, WM.||ANNIE||Mrs. Annie Kenney has been granted an absolute divorce from her husband, Wm L. (or I.) Kenney.||27 May 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|KERN, Henry H.,||Sophia W.||KERN, SOPHIA W. - Sophia W. Kern has, by her attorneys, R. R. Boarman, J.J. Lindsay & R.F. Leach, Jr., filed a bill of divorce against her husband Henry W. Kern. The bill alleges that the defendant has been unfaithful to his marriage vows, and that he has abandoned the plaintiff. A divorce a vinculo matrimonii is asked.||27 Dec 1902||The Democrat|
|KNAPP, Alexander Paysoin||Mary McDonald||KNAPP, ALEXANDER PAYSON - Alexander Payson Knapp, by his attorney, Gans A. Haman, has filed a suit in the Circuit Court for a partial divorce from his wife, Mary MacDonald Knapp.||27 Dec 1902||The Democrat|
|KNOBEL, Henry||Bertha A.||KNOBEL, BERTHA A. - Bertha A. Knobel, by her attorney, Walter R. Townsend, filed a suit for divorce from her husband, Henry Knobel.||31 Aug 1901||The Democrat|
|MAGSAMEN, JACOB||ANNA M.||Mr. John F. Gontrum, attorney for Anna M. Magsamen, has filed a bill for a partial divorce against Jacob Magsamen, alleging cruel treatment. The parties were married on November 1, 1862, and lived together until July 25, 1894. They have four children. Judge Burke signed an order requiring the defendant to pay $100 as counsel fee for plaintiff and $25 per month alimony pending the proceedings.||24 Nov 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|MILLER, George||Delia W.||MILLER, GEO. W. DELIA W. An order has been issued out of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County granting a divorce a vinculo matrimonii to Geo. W. Miller from his wife, Delia W. Miller.||9 March 1889||Maryland Journal|
|MILLER, Henry||Rosy||MILLER, HENRY - Judge Burke signed a decree Tuesday in the Circuit Court at Towson granting to Henry Miller an absolute divorce from his wife, Rosy Miller.||31 Aug 1901||The Democrat|
|MOODY, WIlliam J.||Marie||MOODY, MARIE & WM. J. A bill for divorce was filed in the clerk's office Monday by Marie Moody, through her counsel, W. Ashbie Hawkins, against her husband, Wm. J. Moody, who lives in Mt. Winans, 13th district. They were married on the 29th ? of November, 1890, and lived together in the city of Baltimore until the 17th of November, 1893.||27 July 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|MORRISON, GEORGE||COMFORT|| Mrs. Morrison Wants a Divorce. – Mrs. Comfort M. W. Morrison, nee Cockey, has filed a bill for divorce in the Circuit Court for Baltimore county, against the Rev. George Morrison, a well-known minister of the Presbyterian Church of Baltimore. The bill alleges that they were married January 5, 1892, at Fort Worth, Texas; that since the marriage he has treated her with great cruelty, harshness and brutality; that he has used personal violence toward her, has never done anything to support her, and she has been obliged to pay his traveling expenses
It further charges that he has left her without any cause and has taken away his personal effects, avowing his intention of leaving her finally, and that there is no reasonable hope of reconciliation. She also asks for an injunction restraining and prohibiting him from coming upon her property or to her home, or in anyway interfering with her or her affairs until the final adjudication of their suit. |
Rev. Mr. Morrison was formerly in charge of churches in Baltimore and Harford counties. He has not had any charge for several years. His wife before marriage was Miss Comfort M. W. Cockey, who resided at Cockeysville. His marriage to her was in the nature of a surprise, as it was only announced from Fort Worth after the ceremony had been performed. When in Baltimore Mr. Morrison makes his headquarters at the Imperial hotel. Mrs. Morrison is now living at Cockeysville. Messrs. John I. Yellott & Son and R. H. Bussey are solicitors for the plaintiff.
|10 June 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|MORRISON, REV. GEO.||Comfort||The injunction issued against Rev. Geo. Morrison on June 8th, upon application of his wife, who has sued for divorce, to restrain Mr. Morrison from coming upon the premises of Mrs. Morrison or in any manner interfering with her while the divorce proceedings are pending, could not be served until Friday of last week, owing to the inability of the officers to locate him. On that day Deputies Wm. H. Cole and Eugene Burke found him living in a cottage at Lorely Park on the Philadelphia branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. He was also officially notified of the application for divorce. He said he had prepared his answer to his wife’s bill for divorce, and had sent it to his counsel. The answer to the suit for divorce must be made by the first of August, and then the defendant has twenty days to plead. He can move for the dismissal of the injunction by giving the complainant five days’ notice.||29 July 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|MORRISON, REV. GEORGE||COMFORT|| Rev. George Morrison on Tuesday last filed his answer in court her through Thomas I. Elliott and Frank I. Duncan, attorneys, to the divorce proceedings instituted by his wife, Comfort M. W. Morrison. In his answer Mr. Morrison denies his wife’s allegations, charges that her bill of complaint is without right or equity and he asks that it be dismissed. |
Mr. Morrison states that he was married to his wife January 5, 1892, at Fort Worth, Tex., but denies that since the marriage he ever treated her with any cruelty, harshness or brutality, or ever acted toward her in any manner inconsistent with the character of a Christian and a gentleman. He denies specially his wife’s allegations that he used personal violence toward her, or that on the 6th day of last June or at any other time he made any attempt or threats to injure her.
Continuing, Mr. Morrison says in his answer: that he admits that his wife, being a woman of large fortune, and having, independent entirely of her husband, an ample income, has voluntarily spent from time to time small sums of money for her own pleasure and benefit, and he alleges and charges that previous to her marriage with him she, well knowing his limited resources and means of income, promised and agreed with him that she would devote her income to their joint support, which promises she has not only not carried out, but has continuously and persistently failed to keep.
That he admits that upon several occasions he has been compelled to leave the residence belonging to his wife in Baltimore county, near Cockeysville, but he avers that his departure at such times was rendered necessary either by professional engagements or as a means of the preservation of his health and life, both of which were frequently put in jeopardy by the treatment received at the hands of his wife.
That he moreover avers that whenever he removed from her residence, with the exception of the last departure, on or about June 6, 1893, he always requested and invited his wife to go with him and offered her the opportunity of living with him as his wife, but she invariably refused to accompany him.
That he admits that after a separation of several months, for which he is in no way to blame, his wife did, some time early in the month of January, 1893, come to him at the Imperial Hotel, in Baltimore city, where she remained with him for several months, but finally returned, against his protest, to her home in Baltimore county.
The answer declares that Mr. Morrison followed his wife to Cockeysville, with a disposition on his part to excuse and extenuate her former treatment of him, but he found that instead of her treatment of him improving it grew worse, until he was forced to the conclusion that it was premeditated on her part and arose from a determination b her to compel him to leave her and afford her the opportunity which she now seeks to avail herself of in the filing of her bill for divorce.
The visit he paid his wife on the 6th of last June at Cockeysville, Mr. Morrison declares, was for the purpose of removing his personal effects and furniture, after notifying her and receiving her consent, but he denies that then or at any other time he threatened to take her life or acted toward her in any improper manner, though, on the other hand, he charges that at that time she made an unprovoked and violent assault upon him, knocking him down and threatening to take his life.
In conclusion the answer denies that Mrs. Morrison has behaved herself as a faithful and affectionate wife, and then continues: Mr. Morrison denies that he has deserted his wife, and affirms that he has been at all times willing and ready to live with her, so long as it was possible to do so peaceably, quietly and in a manner becoming a Christian minister and man, but this, he charges, was rendered impossible, through no fault of his own, but by reason of her conduct, which has always been subversive of and hostile to the existence of those feelings of love, affection and respect which should be ever present on the part of a husband towards his wife.
In speaking of his wife’s divorce application Mr. Morrison denied that he attempted to evade service of the writ. Since he left Cockeysville, he says, he has been living at his former residence, at Lorely, Baltimore county, within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit was instituted.
|19 Aug 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|MORRISON, GEORGE||COMFORT||In the divorce proceedings of Mrs. Comfort M. W. Morrison against Rev. George Morrison a rule has been laid on the plaintiff requiring her to proceed further with the case. Mr. Morrison alleges in a petition that he filed his answer to the plaintiff’s bill of complaint in August, 1893, since which time she has taken no further steps in the case||22 Dec 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|NAHRER, JOHN||CAROLINE||A bill for divorce a mensa et thoro has been filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court by Caroline Nahrer against John Nahrer. Desertion is charged in the bill. The court signed an order requiring the defendant to pay C. Bohn Slingluff $50 counsel fees for the plaintiff, and to pay the plaintiff $3 per week alimony pendente lite.||20 Sept 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|NAHRER, JOHN||CAROLINE||Mr. John Grason, attorney for John Nahrer, has filed a petition in the court her praying a modification of the court’s order of September 16 granting a divorce to Caroline Nahrer. Divorce proceedings were instituted against Nahrer on September 4, the plaintiff asking $50 counsel fees and $2 per week alimony. Decision was rendered granting a limited divorce with alimony of $3 a week. This the defendant claims is excessive.||14 Oct 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|NIMMO, Walden||Nannie||Nannie B. Nimmo, by A. Parlett Lloyd, attorney, has filed a bill asking to be divorced absolutely from her husband, Walden C. Nimmo.||22 Jan 1898||Baltimore County Democrat.|
|NOLLMAN, JOSEPH||CHRISTINA T.|| Legal Notices In The Circuit Court For Baltimore County. Christina T. Nollman, Plaintiff, vs. Joseph Nollmann, Defendant
The object of this bill is to obtain a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from t he defendant.
The bill states that the parties were married in Mercer county, Pennsylvania, December 16th, 1864, and there were born to them two children; that on June 13th, 1872, without just cause or reason, the defendant abandoned and deserted the plaintiff; that such abandonment has continued uninterruptedly for at least three years, and is deliberate and final, and the separation of the parties is beyond any expectation of reconciliation; that the plaintiff has resided in Baltimore county for the past five years and that the defendant resides in the State of Pennsylvania. |
It is thereupon ordered by the Court this 22d day of January, 1890, that the plaintiff give notice to the said absent defendant of the substance and object of this bill, and warn him to appear in this Court, on or before the 15th day of March, 1890, in person or by solicitor, and show cause, if any he hath, why a decree should not pass as prayed, by causing a copy of this order to be published once a week for four successive weeks in some weekly newspaper published in Baltimore county, before the 24th day of February, 1890. N. Charles Burke. True Copy – Test: John W. Shanklin, Clerk.
|25 Jan 1890||Maryland Journal|
|NYCE, Arthur W.||Isabel||Mrs. Isabel Nyce, by Archibald H. Taylor and Wm. S. Keech, Jr., attorneys, has field a bill of complaint asking an absolute divorce from Arthur W. Nyce, to whom she was married in 1881. Mrs. Nyce alleges that her husband in September last eloped with Mrs. B? L????don, who lived with them as a governess to their children at their home, near Owings Mills. Mr. Nyce, through Thomas Hughes, his attorney, has filed a formal answer to the bill, but neither admits nor denies the charges brought against him by his wife.||26 Oct 1895||Baltimore County Democrat|
|ORTEL John H||Mary D.||John H. Ortel filed a suit for divorce Monday in the Circuit Court against his wife, Mary D. Ortel. The plaintiff states that he was married to the defendant in 1893, and that she has deserted him for a period of over three years.||April 23, 1898||Baltimore County Democrat,|
|PALMER, DANIEL||ELIZABETH||Daniel Palmer vs. Elizabeth Palmer, a vinculo granted. C. Yellott, Esq., for complainant.||13 March 1858||Baltimore County Advocate|
|PARLETT, JOSHUA||SARAH||I hereby forewarn any person or person from harboring or trusting Sarah Parlett, my wife, on my account, as she has left her bed and board without provocation. Joshua Parlett.||3 April 1858||Baltimore County Advocate|
|PARLETT, JOSHUA||SARAH||To the Public. I perceive by last week’s “Advocate” that my wife Sarah Parlett says that I published her leaving her home without provocation, and it was with deep regret she had to do it. As for what I done, it was my duty, as she told me different times she was going before I said anything, then I told her of course to go, as any other one would, being perplexed and in agony, and don’t know if I had my right mind, for on account of the kick I got from the colt, for I was kicked dead for awhile, and did not know whether my skull and jaw were broke or not; two persons were to see me that I had no recollection of. If she had any respect or love for me, let the case be as it might, she could not have left under the present circumstances. She says she entertained the hope that our domestic affairs could have been settled without attracting public notice; I being of the same mind, sent for her to come home, and she positively refused, and she said I treated her with cruelty, which I am prepared at any time to prove to the contrary. I do not wish to enter into a long detail. I would like to inform the public that I think too much of my wife Sarah Parlett to go to vilify or make any public expressions to hurt her feelings, although she has had none for mine. All that I can say, without multiplying many words, that the public shall be able to judge for themselves. She brought me before the public, and the public mind shall be satisfied before it’s done. If she wished to settle our domestic affairs without the public, she should have done so when I sent for her to come home. There is no mercy for me. She has tried to put the blackest colors on every thing, but there are people living still, that knew me long since. No more at present. Yours, Joshua Parlett.||17 April 1858||Baltimore County Advocate|
|PEROT, William Yates||Letitia A. R.||Mrs Letitia A. R. Perot, by her attorney, Henry C. Kennard, has brought suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore count for a divorce from her husband, William Yates Perot. The plaintiff alleges that she has been deserted by the defendant.||13 Aug 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, REV. W. H. H.||LOUISE|| Rev. W. H. H. Powers, the rector of Trinity P. E. Church, in Towsontown, on Thursday last, through his counsel, Col. D. G. McIntosh, filed a bill asking for a partial divorce from his wife, and for the care and custody of his children. He also asks the court to grant an injunction restraining his wife from entering his house or interfering with him in its possession. |
The bill sets forth that Mr. Powers married Louise Sheffey in Virginia October 23d, 1872, and has since resided for seven years in Virginia, for three years in West Virginia, and for the last eleven years in Maryland at Towsontown. There are seven surviving children, six of whom are between the ages of twenty and nine years, and the seventh is an infant born July 5th, 1892. The children have only resided with their parents at irregular intervals.
The bill alleges in part “that the defendant is unhappily possessed of a disposition and temper which is ungovernable and which vents itself upon the plaintiff and children and the domestics whom he is compelled to employ in such gusts of passion, accompanied by such profane and abusive and offensive language, and with such rude violence and threats of serious bodily injury that they are frequently compelled to leave the house and see refuge elsewhere.
It is also alleged that Mr. Powers has sought from time to time to assemble his family together and live in his own house, but his efforts in that way have always been thwarted by the defendant, who spends the larger portion of her time boarding in Baltimore during the winter, while a large portion of the summer for a number of years was spent in Virginia or at some watering place, the children in the meantime being scattered, some at school and some staying with friends or relations.
That during the past spring his eldest daughter having completed her education and being qualified to take upon herself the care of keeping house for her father, and Mrs. Powers having arranged to spend her summer elsewhere, Mr. Powers decided to open the rectory a comfortable home provided him by his parishioners - and have his two oldest daughters and two of the younger children come and live with him. That by way of adding to his income and providing support for the defendant and his children he also arranged to take a few boarders, but no sooner had Mr. Powers provided to carry out his arrangements than his wife appeared, and his household has been disrupted. She would neither keep house herself or suffer her daughters to do so. She dismissed the servants and Mr. Powers finds it impossible to engage or secure the services of domestic help while she is in the house. The boarders have left and she has notified them not to return. The two daughters and the boys present, unable to endure their mother’s harsh and unnatural treatment, have left the house and will not return, although Mr. Powers is unable to provide any other suitable and convenient home for them.
That the youngest child, the infant, is disabled in one of its limbs, having undergone a surgical operation on the limb requiring the application of braces and the attention of a careful and competent nurse, That the plaintiff, after great difficult, succeeded in procuring the services of such a person as nurse, who has had entire charge of the infant for nine months, who has become very fond of the child and is willing to stay with and nurse it. But the defendant has conceived a causeless aversion to the nurse, has ordered her to leave, and driven her out of the house, while, at the same time, she is unable and professes herself unwilling to undertake and perform the duties which appertain to a nurse. That, in consequence, the plaintiff has been compelled to direct the nurse to take the charge and keep the infant out of reach of its mother, as well for the reasons given because the plaintiff is advised and entertains apprehensiveness himself that it would not be prudent to the infant’s safety to have it entrusted to the care of its mother.
Mr. Powers says his income is about $2,500 per annum and the income from his wife from her separate estate is $200? per annum. Mr. Powers is willing to make such provision for the support of the defendant as may be adjudged suitable and proper, but he claims the care and custody of the children, and especially the infant.
|29 July 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, REV. W. H. H.||LOUISE||In regard to the suit lately instituted in the county Circuit Court by the Rev. W. H. H. Powers, rector of Trinity P. E. Church, Towsontown, for a limited divorce or judicial separation from his wife, the vestry of the church have passed resolutions expressing sympathy with Mr. Powers and promising him their support. The vestry have also given him a month’s leave of absence.||12 August 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, REV. W. H. H.||LOUISE||Up to this time no answer has been filed by the defendant in the divorce suit of Rev. W. H. H. Powers against his wife. Mrs. Powers has fifteen days from the 7th of August in which to answer. If counsel enters his appearance for Mrs. Powers he will have twenty days from the time the appearance is entered to file an answer to the bill for divorce. If there should be no appearance at the expiration of the fifteen days then the plaintiff can obtain a decree pro confesso and proceed to take testimony ex parte. After this testimony is taken before a commissioner it is returned to the court and it would be thirty days more before a decree would be passed in the case.||19 Aug 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, REV. W. H .H.||LOUISE||Louise Sheffey Powers, the defendant in the divorce proceedings instituted by Rev. William H. H. Powers, rector of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, Towsontown, notified the clerk of the Circuit Court to enter her personal appearance in the case. She has now twenty days in which to file an answer to her husband’s bill of complaint.||26 Aug 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, REV. W. H. H.||LOUISE|| The answer of Mrs. Louis Sheffey Powers to the application of her husband, Rev. W. H. H. Powers, for a partial divorce, was filed in the Circuit Court her Saturday, through Robert Roddy, her attorney. Mr. Powers, who is rector of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church at this place, filed his application for divorce on the 27th of last July.
The main allegations in the bill of Mr. Powers were his wife’s harsh and unnatural treatment of their children and her conduct toward others in the house. |
In the answer it is stated that many of the charges made in Mr. Power’s complaint are utterly false and without any foundation in fact, while other charges are stated in such form fact and fiction being so adroitly interwoven that the inferences drawn there from, while apparently logical, are in point of fact untruthful and absurd. Facts are alleged without reference to the causes which produced the results as averred, and which causes, when shown by evidence, will give to such facts an entirely different force and color. Thus it is true, as alleged, that Mrs. Powers is possessed of a high and at times, an ungovernable temper, which has vented itself in such forms as to subsequently cause her much sorrow and grief.
The answer further states that Mrs. Powers is also possessed of a peculiarly nervous temperament, easily wrought upon at times, and when so wrought upon has occasionally led to the outbursts of temper complained of facts thoroughly well know to Mr. Powers during the four years of courtship preceding marriage.
Mrs. Powers admits that she has, when wrought upon and aggravated by the unsympathetic and acrimonious treatment of Mr. Powers offered violence to his person, but expressly denies that she has ever been guilty of such acts toward her children.
For the sake of her children, the answer declares Mrs. Powers at first decided to forego all efforts at vindication of herself against the charges made by her husband, and to submit quietly to a separation from him, as he deemed such separation necessary to enable him to continue in the sacred work in which he is engaged, provided her husband would make reasonable provision for her support and the custody of the children. Her demands having been refused, according to the answer, it is stated that she is driven to a defense against the charges made and a full revelation and explanation of the circumstances tending her domestic life in order that justice may be done her by the court.
Mrs. Powers, the answer states, refrains from fully answering or explaining the charges made against her until a later stage of the case, but contents herself with declaring that it is within her power to repeal entirely many of the charges made against her, and to so explain the others as to deprive them of their intended effect if given the means to do so.
A number of witnesses for Mrs. Powers, the answer declares, will have to be brought from Virginia at her expense or means provided for taking their testimony there, and she will require alimony during the pendency of the divorce proceeding and an allowance for her defense and to pay for counsel. She is wholly without means, it is asserted. She was adopted by an uncle in her infancy and upon his death a few years ago he bequeathed an annuity of $300 each to her and her sister.
Mrs. Power’s income, the bill declares, has been almost exclusively devoted to the education of her children, and has been anticipated for nearly two years, so that for that time she will be entirely without income or means of support except such as the court may allow her out of her husband’s income. The answer further declares that Mrs. Powers is obliged to remain alone in the rectory in an almost destitute condition until she is supplied with means to remove elsewhere. Her family are not possessed of such means as to contribute to her support in any way, and the contest forced upon her by this proceeding will necessarily largely increase her expenses. Mr. Powers avers in his bill of complaint that he has an income of about $2,500 a year. He has in addition a home provided for him by his congregation, and will have with him two daughters who have been educated largely a the expense of his wife and her uncle, which daughters will be a great assistance to him and save to him much expense. He has been sending to Mrs. Powers the sum of ten dollars a week for her support since he filed the bill, but he has caused representation to be made to her that this amount will be reduced.
In conclusion the answer claims that the allowance heretofore made to his wife by Mr. Powers should be increased, in view of his income and circumstances of living, and that, in view of the expenses of her defense, she is entitled to a liberal allowance.
Judge Burke signed an order, in compliance with the request contained in the above answer. The order directs the plaintiff to pay to Mr. Roddy, solicitor for the defendant, $500 counsel fee, and to pay $15 a week to the defendant as alimony during the continuance of the suit, the payment to commence from August26? Unless cause for withholding it be shown. Sheriff Jenifer served a copy of the order on Mr. Powers, and he was directed to show cause, if any he has, why such payments should not be made.
|2 Sept 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, REV. W. H. H.||LOUISE||In the divorce proceeding of Rev. W. H. H. Powers against his wife, Col. D. G. McIntosh, his counsel, has filed an answer to the petition of Mrs. Powers in which she asked for $15 a week alimony during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, instituted by her husband, and an allowance of $500 to her counsel for legal expenses. In his answer Mr. Powers refers to what he had stated in his bill of complaint, that he is ready and willing to make such provision for the support of his wife as may be adjudged suitable and proper. He says his wife has repeatedly expressed her belief that a decree of separation is unavoidable. He therefore asserts that her application for large counsel fee and for money to procure witnesses in her behalf is unnecessary. In the answer Mr. Powers further states that he has no estate out of which alimony or counsel fees could be decreed by the court, although he is willing to do the utmost he can for the support of his wife, having due regard for the claims of his children, who are dependent upon him: that since the filing of his bill he has made constant effort to avert the necessity of a trial of the case in court, and that he is willing to submit the matters of alimony and the custody of the children to the court, to be determined upon such testimony as the court may have taken before it orally or upon the submission of affidavits. Mr. Powers refers to a proposition which he says he made to his wife in writing August 28, offering to allow her $500 a year on condition of her leaving Towsontown and not returning, and to make certain allowances to two of his daughters, who were to spend a portion of their time with each of their parents, the other children to be allowed to visit Mrs. Powers whenever they choose. Mr. Powers states that it would be impossible for him to comply with the request of Mrs. Powers that he should pay her $500 yearly for herself and a like sum for her two daughters, who are now in Virginia, coupled with a condition that they shall be under her excusive control, and says such an allowance to the two daughters would be unjust to his other children, especially because, as asserted, his wife has, or will soon have, a separate income of her own.||9 Sept 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, REV. W. H. H.||LOUISE||W. Frank Tucker has entered his appearance for Mrs. Louise Sheffey Powers in the divorce proceedings instituted by Rev. Wm. H. H. Powers against Mrs. Powers.||16 Sept 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, REV. W. H. H.||LOUISE|| Mrs. Louisa Sheffy Powers, through Robert Roddy, her attorney, on Monday filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court her answer to the bill of complaint of her husband, Rev. Wm. H. H. powers, rector of Trinity Protestant Episcopal church, of this place. She denies that she uses profane and abusive language, and with such rude violence and threats of serious bodily injury that the children were frequently compelled to leave the house and seek refuge elsewhere. She had not offered violence to her children, and she had not forgotten the ordinary decencies and proprieties of life. She admits that she spent considerable portions of her time from home, but declares that the interference that she thereby neglected her domestic duties and in opposition to the wishes of the complainant, is false and misleading. She declares that the allegation that she never keeps house herself or suffers her daughters to do so is false. She admits that she does not keep the house herself because her health will not admit of it a fact well known to the complainant. She denies that her language and behavior has been so indecent and outrageous that the moral training and well-being of her children necessitates their being kept out of her presence, and denies every inference reflecting unfavorably on her character as a mother. As to the difficulty experienced by the complainant in procuring the services of a nurse or as to the great attachment the nurse has for the defendant’s youngest child, she has not sufficient knowledge to answer. |
Col. David G. McIntosh, attorney for Rev. Mr. Powers and Mr. Robert Roddy, for Mrs. Powers, filed separate petitions, asking leave to take testimony before an examiner. The court signed orders granting leave to both sides.
|16 Sept 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, WM. H. H.||LOUISE||Judge Burke has set today, October 7, for a hearing in the matter of the petition of Mrs. Louise Sheffey Powers against Rev. William H. H. Powers, for alimony and counsel fees. Rev. Mr. Powers on Monday notified the vestry of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church that he desired to surrender the rectory, which is occupied by his wife. The vestry accepted, and notified Mrs. Powers to vacate within a week.||7 Oct 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS,||LOUISE SHEFFEY||On Monday afternoon Mr. Harry Malcolm swore out a warrant before Justice A. W. Perrie, against Mrs. Louise Sheffey Powers, charging that she tried to induce the maid of Mrs. Malcolm, his wife, to poison her mistress, and that on Monday she entered the boarding house of Mrs. Craig, where Mr. and Mrs. Malcolm are staying, and told the cook to put arsenic in Mrs. Malcolm’s food. Mrs. Powers gave security in $500 to keep the peace, Major John I. Yellott and Major Chas. B. McClean being her sureties.||7 Oct 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, WM, H. H.||LOUISE||On Monday last Chief Judge Fowler signed a decree granting the petition of Rev. W. H. H. Powers, rector of Trinity P. E. Church, for a legal separation from his wife. The decree was signed in accordance with an agreement made between Col. D. G. McIntosh, counsel for Mr. Powers, and Mr. Robert Roddy, counsel for Mrs. Powers. The decree is for legal separation, the plaintiff to pay the defendant $50 a month until January 1, 1895, and after that at the rate of $400 a year, provided Mrs. Powers leaves the rectory and does not return to it or to Towsontown and does not interfere in any way with the household of Mrs. (Mr.) Powers, wherever he may reside. The custody of the younger children of the couple is given to Mr. Powers, but Mrs. Powers is to have the infant two months or longer each year if she desires. Miss Marguerite Powers, a daughter, is to choose whether she will live with her father or remain at school at Staunton, Va. Miss Muriel Powers is to remain with her aunt at Staunton until she is eighteen, but is to spend two months each year with her father, who is to contribute $150 a year to her support. Mrs. Powers is to have access to the children at all times elsewhere than at Towsontown, and Mr. Powers is to pay the costs of the suit. Mrs. Powers repudiates the agreement made by her lawyer, and says it was wholly without her sanction and proposes to fight it in the courts.||14 Oct 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, WM. H. H.||LOUISE||Mrs. Louisa Sheffy Powers has vacated the rectory of Trinity P. E. Church and left Towsontown, in compliance with the decree of Court passed in the divorce case separating her from her husband.||28 Oct 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|POWERS, WM H. H||LOUISE||Rev. Wm. H. H. Powers, rector of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, Towson, has again taken up his residence in the rectory which was recently vacated by Mrs. Powers.||4 Nov 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|PRANTE, Henry||Mary||Mary Pranie (or Prante)has by William H. Lawrence, her attorney, filed a bill for divorce from Henry Pranie (or Prante), her husband. She was married to the defendant in Adams county, Ill., in 1894. She alleges that he has deserted her. (note: Henry A. PRANTE married Mary Nahsemann in Adams Co., IL on 22 Feb 1894. There is also a marriage license in Adams Co. IL for Henry A. PRANTE to Ida Heinmann/Heumann dated 12 Oct 1898||July 30, 1898||Baltimore County Democrat, .|
|QUICKLEY, JOHN||ELLA||John Quickley, by Frank I. Duncan, attorney, filed a bill of complaint asking an absolute divorce from Ella Quickley.||4 Nov 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|Quickley, John||Ella||Judge Burke has signed a decree absolutely divorcing John Quickley from Ella Quickley.A||3 March 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|REDMOND, Charles M.||Jennie||Jennie Redmond has filed a bill of an absolute divorce from Charles M. Redmond on the gound of desertion. The couple were married in Oct. 1884, and lived together until three years ago.||9 Mar 1895||Baltimore County Democrat,|
|ROSENBERGER, Louis||Isabel||Isabel Rosenberger, by Frank I. Duncan, attorney, has filed a bill for absolute divorce from her husband, Louis Rosenberger. An injunction has been issued to restrain the defendant from encumbering his property until the determination of the case.||18 June 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|ROSS, Conrad||Mamie||Mamie Ross, by Wm. H. Laurence, attorney, has filed a bill asking for a partial divorce from her husband, Conrad Ross, on the ground of abandonment.||15 Jan 1898||Baltimore County Democrat|
|RUEGEMER, John A.||KUEGEMER, Augusta||RUEGEMER, JOHN A. - John A. Ruegemer, by William H.H. Anderson, attorney, has applied for an absolute divorce from Augusta Kuegemer. The couple were married May 4th, 1899, and have one child. (Spelling is as in the paper.)||28 Sept 1901||Baltimore County Democrat|
|SAMPSON, Murray G.||Etta E.||Etta E. Sampson, by William D. Robinson, attorney, has applied for a partial divorce from her husband Murray G. Sampson.||5 March 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|SAMPSON, Murray G.||Etta E.||Murray G. Sampson, by John I. Yellott, his attorney, has filed an answer to the bill of complaint of his wife, Etta E. Sampson, in which she asked for a partial divorce. The defendant denies the charge of cruel treatment brought against him by his wife and says that she left his home without cause.||March 12, 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat,|
|SCHATZ, AUGUST||BERTIE||Bertie H. Schatz, by John I. Yellott & Son, attorneys, has filed a bill asking a partial divorce from August Shatz, to whom she was married in November, 1892. She also asks alimony and the allowance of a fee to her counsel.||23 Sept 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|SCHLAFFER, Andrew||Mary||Judge Burke signed an order Wednesday in the divorce case of Mary Schlaffer against her husband, Andrew Schlaffer, allowing the plaintiff $5 per week alimony.||11 Dec 1897||Baltimore County Democrat|
|SHEARMAN, Washington||Elmira||SHEARMAN, WASHINGTON ELMIRA Mr. James J. Lindsay, as attorney for Mrs. Elmira Shearman, filed a bill in equity in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on the 29th ult. Asking for an absolute divorce from her husband, Washington Shearman, on the ground of cruel treatment of herself and children, especially her daughters, and infidelity on his part with various women in Baltimore. The Shearmans have five children, and were married in April, 1860. Plaintiff asks for an injunction to restrain the defendant from encumbering, selling or otherwise disposing of his property, and for alimony pendente lite and afterwards and for counsel fees. Mr. Eugene Burton has been retained as the counsel for the defendant, Mr. Shearman, and it is expected the case will excite considerable interest.||6 Apr 1889||Maryland Journal|
|SHOCK, CHARLES N.||BARBARA||Mrs. Barbara Shock, through her counsel, John S. Ensor, on Tuesday filed in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court, here, a bill for absolute divorce from Charles N. Shock. Judge Burke considered the testimony in the application Thursday and granted the divorce as asked. The bill sets forth that the couple were married in Hamilton, Ohio, February 19th (or 10th), 1887. At that time Mrs. Shock says she had $12,000, all of which has been recklessly spent or lost in speculation by her husband. That he has been unfaithful to his marriage vows in numerous instances, &c. The Court in passing the decree, says: “Whereas, it appears in evidence that Charles N. Shock has been repeatedly guilty of the grave crime of adultery as charged in the bill, therefore it is ordered that Barbara Shock shall be granted a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and that she shall resume her maiden name and that Charles N. Shock shall pay all the costs in the suit. The bill was filed on October 31st and granted on November 2d. C. Bohn Slingluff represented the husband.||4 Nov 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|SLADE, Harry M||Elizabeth||SLADE, HARRY M. ELIZABETH seven hundred typewritten pages constitute the testimony taken in the suit of Mrs. Elizabeth Love Slade for a partial divorce from her husband, Dr. Harry M. Slade, of Reisterstown, who is represented by Mr. Frank I. Duncan. Judge Burke set the case for trial April 13th.||15 March 1902||Baltimore County Union|
|SLADE, VERNON||ELIZABETH|| Elizabeth Slade vs. Vernon Slade. Circuit Court For Baltimore County, In Equity. |
The object of this suit is to procure a decree for divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and for alimony, and for all the costs and charges in this suit.
The bill states that during the year 1843 the parties were married, and that they cohabitated together as husband and wife until about the 15th of August, 1856. That there are now living seven children, the issue of the said marriage. That the complainant hath ever faithfully performed her duties as the wife of the defendant. That the defendant did commit adultery with one certain woman, and with divers others, to the complainant unknown. That since that time there has been no voluntary condonation on the part of the complainant. That the defendant hath abandoned the complainant for the space of eighteen months last past, refusing to answer her letters, and leaving the complainant and her children without any support. That at the time of the defendant’s departure he was possessed of property of great value: and that the said Vernon Slade resides out of the State of Maryland.
It is thereupon this 9th day of February adjudged and ordered, that the complainant by causing a copy of this order to be inserted in the Baltimore County Advocate, and weekly paper published at Towsontown, in Baltimore county and the State of Maryland, once in each of four successive weeks, before the 25th day of March next, give notice to the said absent defendant of the object and substance of this bill, and warn him to appear in this Court in person or by solicitor, on or before the 25th day of June next, to answer the premises and show cause if any he has why a decree ought not to pass as prayed. True copy. Geo. H. Carman, Clerk. Lewis H. Wheeler, Solicitor for Complainant.
|27 February 1858||Baltimore County Advocate|
|SOTH, Henry A.||Minnie C.||Minnie C. Soth, through James J. Lindsay,attorney, has filed a bill for an absolute divorce from Henry A. Soth. The couple were married September 18, 1880, and lived together until February 4, 1894. They have two children. Infidelity is alleged in the bill.||7 Sept 1895||The Baltimore County Democrat|
|THIELL, William||Anna||Anna M Thiell has filed a bill for partial divorce against William C. Thiell on the ground of abandonment. The couple were married Feb. 22, 1892, and have two children.||11 Jan 1896||Baltimore County Democrat|
|TRACEY, William||Amanda S.||TRACEY, AMANDA S. - Amanda S. Tracey filed a suit for divorce from her husband, William Tracey, on the ground of abandonment. T. Scott Offutt appears for the plaintiff.||31 Aug 1901||The Democrat|
|TURNBAUGH, Geo.||Missouri||TURNBAUGH, GEO MISSOURI: Missouri Turnbaugh, by W. F. Mitchell, attorney, has filed a bill of complaint, asking for a partial divorce from her husband, Geo. Turnbaugh. The court has passed an order directing the defendant to pay to his wife $5 a month during the pendency of the suit and $25 as a fee to her counsel.||15 Apr 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|TURNBAUGH, GEORGE||MISSOURI||In the divorce proceedings of Missouri Turnbaugh against George Turnbaugh, Judge Burke on Monday filed a decree granting an absolute divorce, allowing the plaintiff $24 a year alimony, and the custody of her children. The defendant is required to pay the costs.||23 June 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|UHRICH, ISAAC T.||MARTHA||Isaac T. Uhrich, by Robert H. Bussey and John I. Yellot & Son, his attorney, has applied for a partial divorce from his wife, Martha A. Uhrich, on the ground of desertion.||27 May 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|UHRICH, ISAAC T.||MARTHA A.||In the equity case of Isaac T. Uhrich against Martha A. Uhrich ( divorce proceedings), the defendant filed her answer, denying charges of unfaithfulness in the plaintiff’s bill of complaint. She also filed a cross-bill asking for a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and two petitions asking for an injunction restraining Isaac T. Uhrich from disposing of any of his property, or encumbering it with mortgage, and for an order of court requiring him to pay her counsel fees, and alimony pen dente lite. Judge Burke signed an order granting the injunction, with leave to the defendant to move to dissolve the same on filing his answer. He also signed an order requiring the defendant to pay to the plaintiff $50 for her counsel fees, and $3 per week alimony, unless cause to the contrary be shown by July 10th.||1 July 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|UHRICH, ISAAC T.||MARTHA A.||An agreement has been filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court by which Isaac T. Uhrich and Martha A. Uhrich, his wife, will live apart, the wife to have the custody of the children and the husband to dismiss the proceedings for divorce. Mrs. Uhrich is to pay the costs.||12 May 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|WEISS, Michael||Elizabeth||Elizabeth Weiss, by John F. Gontrum, attorney, has filed a bill for absolute divorce from Michael Weiss.||11 Jan 1896||Baltimore County Democrat|
|WEISS, Michael||Elizabeth||Elizabeth Weiss, of the 12th district, has been granted an absolute divorce from Michael Weiss and the custody of her infant children.||8 Feb 1896||Baltimore County Democrat|
|WEISS, Michael||Elizabeth||WEISS, MICHAEL ELIZABETH Elizabeth Weiss has obtained a partial divorce from Michael Weiss. She is granted the custody of her seven children and $5 a week alimony.||8 Apr 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|WINEHOLT, GEO. F.||ELIZABETH||In the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court a bill for divorce a vinculo matrimoni has been filed by Geo. F. Wineholt against Elizabeth Wineholt. Abandonment and infidelity are alleged in the bill. The couple were married in 1864?.||19 Aug 1893||Baltimore County Democrat|
|YOUNG-HARE-Joseph YOUNG||Jane HARE||Jane Hare, by her mother, Mary E. Hare, through D. G. McIntosh, attorney, has brought a suit for alleged breach of promise of marriage against Joseph Young. The plaintiff claims $5,000 damages.||12 Oct 1894||Baltimore County Democrat|
|YOUNG - HARE, Joseph YOUNG||Jane HARE||The Circuit Court was engaged several days this week with the breach of promise of marriage suit instituted by Jane Hare, daughter of Mary E. Hare, against Joseph Young.||6 Apr 1898||The Baltimore County Democrat|
Return to the Main Page for Baltimore County USGenWeb
This page updated 11 Janry 2009