Tag Archives: divorce

Insanity No Ground

Schwartz, W. B. - 1903-07-09INSANITY NO GROUND

For Divorce in Indiana, Says Indianapolis Judge.

Judge Carter, of the superior court Indianapolis, yesterday denied a divorce to William B. Schwartz, an attorney, whose wife has been in the Central Indiana Insane Hospital since 1890. The judge said that insanity is not a ground for divorce in Indiana and the cruelty alleged and testified to was shortly before his wife became insane, and he would not grant a divorce on that ground.

Edgar A. Brown was appointed guardian to look after Mrs. Schwartz’s interests in the suit. Previously Schwartz had filed two complaints for divorce, but he dismissed them. In the last case the issues were fought through. Schwartz’s attorney made a plea that his client should not for the rest of his life have the burden of his wife interfered with real transfers of real estate he desired to make. Mr. Schwartz’s brother approved the request for a divorce.

“Insanity No Ground,” Logansport Reporter (Logansport, Indiana), 9 July 1903, p. 3, col. 6; digital image, Newspaper Archive (http://www.newspaperarchive.com : accessed 31 March 2014).

Not Ground For Divorce

Schwartz, W. B. - 1903-07-08 #2NOT GROUND FOR DIVORCE

Judge Carter Would Not Grant It Because Defendant Is Insane

William B. Schwartz, an attorney whose wife has been in the Central Insane Hospital since 1890, was refused a divorce by Judge Carter yesterday. The judge said that insanity is not a ground for divorce in Indiana; that it is one of the “risks of the partnership,” and he would not grant a decree on that ground.

Edgar A. Brown was appointed guardian to look after Mrs. Schwartz’s interest in the suit. Schwartz’s attorney made the plea that his client should not for the rest of his life have such a burden upon him, and claimed that in the insanity of his wife interfered with transfers of real estate he desired to make. Mrs. Schwartz’s brother was in favor of a divorce.

“Not Ground For Divorce,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), p. 9, col. 1; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 30 March 2014).

Judge’s Opinion

Schwartz, W. B. - 1903-07-08JUDGE’S OPINION

Insanity is Declared No Cause For a Divorce

Indianapolis, Ind., July 8. – In the divorce case of William B. Schwartz, an attorney, whose wife has been confined in the insane hospital since 1890, Judge Carter, of the superior court, ruled that insanity is not a ground for divorce, and the petition was denied. The court also held that the acts of cruelty complained of were committed shortly before his wife was adjuded insane and could not be made a ground for divorce.

“Judge’s Opinion,” Hartford City Telegram (Hartford, Indiana), 8 July 1903, p. 8, col. 2; digital image, Newspaper Archive (http://www.newspaperarchive.com : accessed 28 March 2014).

Claims Law Is Unconstitutional

Schwartz, W. B. - 1901-07-12

Claims Law Is Unconstitutional.

Attorney W. B. Schwartz yesterday attacked the constitutionality of the new divorce law before Judge Carter. He said there is no law that can compel a plaintiff to pay for the defense of his own suit. His client, William S. Moorman, refused to advance the $5 fee for defending the case, and the suit was dismissed by the court. Schwartz asks that his suit be reinstated.

“Claims Law Is Unconstitutional,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 12 July 1901, p. 6, col. 5; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 24 March 2014).

The Court Record – 30 June 1901

Schwartz, W. B. - 1901-06-30 #2

CIRCUIT COURT

Henry Clay Allen, Judge.

William B. Schwartz vs. Mary V. Schwartz; divorce. Insanity of defendant suggested. Samuel Ashby appointed guardian ad litem for defendant.

“Circuit Court,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 30 June 1901, p. 7, col. 4; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 23 March 2014).

Divorce Law Attacked

Schwartz, W. B. - 1901-06-30 #1DIVORCE LAW ATTACKED

Law Requiring a Deposit Fee Said to Be Unconstitutional

The new divorce law was again attacked in Judge Carter’s court yesterday by the filing of a petition to reinstate a suit that was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to deposit $5 as a fee for the prosecuting attorney to defend the case. The case is that of William S. Moorman against his wife, Alforetta Moorman. The petition says that the plaintiff did not comply with the law because his suit was filed before the passage of the new divorce law requiring the plaintiff to advance $5 for defending the case, and that the law could not affect his action. He says it is unfair for the litigant to bear the burden of his own and his wife’s misfortune, and ‘pay a premium to the wrong doer from bringing about such wrongs.’ A paragraph of the petition reads: “That said law under which ruling and order was made in unconstitutional for the reason that it is local legislation, as, if it is a blessing to Indianapolis, it has more than its share of blessedness, and if it is a curse, this same place has more than its share of the burden.” The petition was filed by W. B. Schwartz.

“Divorce Law Attacked,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 30 June 1901, p. 7, col. 3; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 23 March 2014).

W. B. Schwartz’s Suit

Schwartz, W. B. - 1901-06-04W. B. Schwartz’s Suit.

William B. Schwartz yesterday filed suit against his wife, Mary F. Schwartz, for divorce. He avers that she possesses a violent tempter, and suddenly became insane. He asks that a guardian ad litem be appointed for her while the proceedings are pending.

NEW SUITS FILED.

W.  B. Schwartz vs. Mary V. Schwartz: divorce. Circuit Court.

“W. B. Schwartz’s Suit,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 4 June 1901, p. 6, col. 5-6; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/  : accessed 20 March 2014).

“New Suits Filed,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 4 June 1901, p. 6, col. 6; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 20 March 2014).

[Editor’s note: This is the second time W. B. Schwartz filed for a divorce. The first filing was in May 1900.]

Divorce Suit Blanks

Schwartz, W. B. - 1901-03-16Divorce Suit Blanks.

Divorces have become so common that attorneys are now using printed blank forms of complaints which are so constructed as to fit the average suit for separation. The first of this form of complaints was filed yesterday by W. B. Schwartz. The form is as complete as that used in the foreclosure of improvement liens and other matters of common litigation, having blanks in the body of the charges for dates, names and a short space left for the pronoun “he” or “she,” according to the sex of the plaintiff or defendant.

The suit that initiates this form of divorce complaint into the courts of Marion county is that of Mattie M. Travis against Charles F. Travis, basing the grounds for separation on alleged cruel treatment.

NEW SUITS FILED.

Emily W. Mills vs. Winifred B. Holton et al.: on note. Superior Court, Room 1.
Hiram H. Gibbs vs. Richard Ryse: damages. Superior Court, Room 2.
Mary Bogle vs. George Bogle: divorce. Superior Court, Room 1.
Sadie E. Leacock vs. Anna B. Knee et al.: partition. Circuit Court.
Mattie M. Travis vs. Charles F. Travis: divorce. Superior Court, Room 3.

“Divorce Suit Blanks,” and “New Suits Filed,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 16 March 1901, p. 8, col. 4; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 18 arch 2014).

The Court Record

Schwartz, W. B. - 1900-06-25THE COURT RECORD.

SUPERIOR COURT.

Hon. Martin Hugg, Special Judge.

William Schwartz vs. Mary Schwartz; divorce. Evidence partly heard. Continued.

“The Court Record,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 25 June 1900, p. 3, col. 5; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 17 March 2014).

Divorce Suit Continued

Schwartz, W. B. - 1900-06-24Divorce Suit Continued.

The divorce suit of William Schwartz against Mary Schwartz, tried before Martin Hugg, special judge. In Room 2 of the Superior Court, yesterday, was continued. He alleges that his wife is an inmate of the insane hospital, and asks that a divorce be granted.

“Divorce Suit Continued,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 24 June 1900, p. 6, col. 3-4; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 16 March 2014).