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
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).
NEW SUITS FILED
Wallshier D. Bodenhamer vs. William B. Schwartz et al.: mortgage foreclosure. Superior court, Room 2.
“New Suits Filed,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 11 June 1901, p. 6, col. 5; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 21 March 2014).
W. 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.
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).
SHERIFF’S SALE.
By virtue of a certified copy of a degree to me directed from the clerk of the Marion Circuit Court of Marion county, Indiana, in Cause No. 10042, wherein Thomas Johnson is plaintiff and Walter S. Oder is defendant, requiring me to make the sum of nineteen dollars and fifty centers ($19.50), as provided for in said decree, with interest and costs, I will expose at public sale to the highest bidder, on
SATURDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 1901,
between the hours of 10 o’clock a.m. and 4 o’clock p.m. of said day, at the door of the courthouse of Marion county, the rents and profits for a term not exceeding seven years, of the following real estate in Marion county, Indiana: Lot numbered two hundred and forty-six (246), in Dr. Martin’s second addition to the city of Indianapolis.
If such rents and profits will not sell for a sufficient sum to satisfy said decree, with interest and costs, I will, at the same time and place, expose to public sale the fee simple of said real estate, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to discharge said decree. Said sale will be made without relief from valuation or appraisement laws.
EUGENE SAULCY,
Sheriff of Marion County.
Feb. 16, 1901
W. B. Schwartz, Attorney for Plaintiff.
“Sheriff’s Sale,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis Indiana), 2 March 1901, p. 6, col. 2; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 18 March 2014).
THE 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.
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).
Suit for Divorce.
William Schwartz brought suit for divorce from his wife, Mary Schwartz, yesterday. He alleges that they separated in 1890 and charges her with having an ungovernable temper and striking him. He also says she has been an inmate of the Central Insane Hospital for the last ten years.
NEW SUITS FILED.
Joseph Souer vs. Richard M. Crosby et al.: damages. Demand, $1,000. Superior Court. Room 2.
William Schwartz vs. Mary Schwartz; divorce. Superior Court. Room 2.
Max Gundelfinger vs. Sarah Gundelfinger et al.; partition. Circuit Court.
“Suit for Divorce,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 26 May 1900, p. 3, col. 3; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 15 March 2014).
“New Suits Filed,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 26 May 1900, p. 3, col. 4; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 15 March 2014).
__________________________________
There is plenty information available on-line about the early Indiana medical health system and the Central Hospital for the Insane. Below are several links to sites regarding the Indiana Central Hospital for the Insane. (I have avoided those sites and videos that dwell on the ghost hunting and paranormal activity around the old hospital site, if you are interested in those, just google the Central Hospital for the Insane). Several members of the extended Yegerlehner family ended up “in the system” in the 1890s and early 1900s. At this time, three women are known: Mary Victoria (Wheeler) Schwartz, Rosina (Yegerlehner) Wolfe and Nancy (McCoy) Walker Kline. Accessing mental health records in Indiana is not easy due to privacy restrictions so it may never be clear why these women were institutionalized, basically for the remainder of their lives. In Rosina’s case, she spend nearly 40 years in the state hospital system. Were these women merely victims of the time in which they lived, when medical science did not understand conditions and symptoms that are more easily understood today? Were they genuinely ill? Or were they sent away to be hushed up? Whatever the reason, the conditions that existed at Central and the other state hospitals was deplorable.
http://www.in.gov/icpr/2650.htm
http://historicindianapolis.com/a-room-with-a-view-central-state-hospital/
http://www.asylumprojects.org/index.php?title=Central_Indiana_State_Hospital
http://indianapublicmedia.org/momentofindianahistory/central-state-hospital/
© Deborah Sweeney, 2014.
Post originally found: https://genealogylady.net/2014/03/16/suit-for-divorce/
Robinson Sent to Workhouse
Paul V. Robinson, who shot his wife, stenographer in the law office of W. B. Schwartz, on East Washington street, Jan. 19, was fined $160 and sentenced to the workhouse for six months, by Judge Alford, in the Criminal Court, yesterday. The original charge was assault and battery with intent to kill, but the intent was withdrawn and he was permitted to pleas guilty to assault and battery. Mrs. Robinson was shot in the back, but was not seriously hurt, and another shot came very near hitting Attorney Schwartz, who disarmed Robinson. About a week ago Mrs. Robinson filed suit for divorce.
CRIMINAL COURT
–Fremont Alford, Judge–
The State of Indiana vs. Paul Robinson; assault and battery to kill. Defendant withdrew former plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty. Find $160 and sentenced to the workhouse for six months.
“Robinson Sent to Workhouse,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 6 March 1900, p. 6, col. 4; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 13 March 2014).
“Criminal Court,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 6 March 1900, p. 6, col. 5; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 13 March 2014).
Genealogy Lady 