---

ABBOTT vs. ABBOTT

James W. Abbott, of Lorain County, has sued his wife, Lotta, who resides at Plymouth, this county, for divorce, on the grounds of gross neglect of duty, remaining out late at night with other men, etc.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  14 August 1890, Vol. 40, no. 39]

ACKERMAN vs. ACKERMAN

The disagreement between Peter Ackerman, the Fourth and Main street Diamond restauranteur, and his wife is still fresh in the memory of the public.  The parties continued to reside together and contrary to general expectations no application for divorce was filed, although both parties employed attorneys.  Peter Ackerman retained Connolly & Laser and Mrs. Ackerman employed Bell & Brinkerhoff.

The criminations and recriminations on both sides are well known and it is unnecessary to reiterate them here.  Suffice it to say that instead of the difficulties being settled, the two decided to separate instead of procuring a divorce.  Under the Ohio statutes a man and wife can make a contract between themselves and hence an agreement to live apart is equally binding to both.

Such an instrument was drawn up and signed Thursday by Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman.  The paper starts out by "whereasing" that the parties are husband and wife and are now not satisfied with their marital relations it is agreed, etc.  The agreement is that the parties shall divide their property, all of which is held jointly between themselves equally.

The West Fourth street residence is to be sold to-day to Ex-street commissioner Cline for $5000, which is to be divided in such proportions as will permit of Mr. Ackerman retaining the other property, such as the saloon, as his one-half.  The agreement is in no sense a divorce and neither are free from the marriage vow.  If either violates it he or she is liable to a suit in divorce as if they were living together.

This is the first instance, probably, in this community, of an agreement of separation under the new statute.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  31 July 1890, Vol. 40, No. 37]

AUNGST vs. AUNGST

Nancy J. Aungst has filed her cross-petition in the divorce suit brought by her husband, Lewis D.  She alleges gross cruelty, failure to provide, and that he threatened to kill her parents.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  07 August 1890, Vol. 40, No. 38]

BLAIR vs. BLAIR

Marion E. Blair has sued Linnie May, his wife, for divorce because she refuses to live with him.  They were married April 11, 1888, and have one child.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  22 May 1890, Vol. 40, No. 27]

BOOTH vs. BOOTH

Judge McCray, Friday, granted a divorce to Mary Booth from John Booth on the grounds of gross neglect of duty and abuse.  It will be remembered that Booth packed up a lot of stuff belonging to his wife and with three horses left the country.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  27 November 1890, Vol. 41, No. 2]

BOWIE vs. BOWIE

A divorce was granted to Della Bowie from John Bowie Saturday.  Cruelty.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  16 January 1890, Vol. 40, No. 9]

BURKHOLDER vs. BURKHOLDER

Mary Burkholder vs. Daniel Burkholder.  Charge is cruelty.    Resided together less than three months.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  25 September 1890, Vol. 40, No. 45]

The grounds alleged were cruelty and wilful absence.  From the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff is the granddaughter of Peter Rissler, who resides in the country.  The defendant is worthless and refuses to support her.  They were married December 31, 1887, and have no children.  The defendant lives in Bellville.  He beat plaintiff with a strap and once in the presence of her family threw her down, put his knees on her breast and attempted to choke her and force hot potatoes down her throat, burning her mouth.  They lived together three months.  Plaintiff's maiden name was Mary Hess.  Her mother is married to John Hartle.  Divorce granted.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  25 December 1890, Vol. 41, No. 6]

CASE vs. CASE

Divorce granted Saturday (Sept. 13th.), Georgia Case from James W., gross neglect.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  18 September 1890, Vol. 40, No. 44]

CROSS vs. CROSS

Mrs. Mary Cross has sued Geo. Cross for divorce for extreme cruelty.  They were married last December.  Donnell & Marriott are her attorneys.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  17 July 1890, Vol. 40, No. 35]

CROSS vs. CROSS

It is said that Robert Cross, aged 77, will sue for divorce from is wife, Kate, shortly.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  20 February 1890, Vol. 40, No. 14]

ENOS vs. ENOS

Melzar F. Enos, the actor, has applied for a divorce from Ida F. Enos, on account of wilful absence.  They were married at Trenton, N.J. in 1887, while members of the Bandmann company.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  17 April 1890, Vol. 40, No. 22]

M.F. Enos has been granted a divorce by Judge May.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  19 June 1890:  Vol. 40, No. 31]

ERNSBERGER vs. ERNSBERGER

John Ernsberger has filed a suit for divorce from his wife Emma.  They were married Aug. 20, 1885.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  13 February 1890, Vol. 40, No. 13]

GERISH vs. GERISH

Caroline Gerish has sued Geo. L. for divorce on the grounds for cruelty such as dragging her about the house by the hair.  Plaintiff was formerly Caroline Netscher.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  03 July 1890, Vol. 40, No. 33]

Mrs. Caroline Gerisch has voluntarily dismissed her case for divorce in common please court, and is living with her husband and family on West Bloom street.  The numerous friends and acquaintances of the family will be pleased to learn that no separation will take place and they will continue to receive and welcome their many friends.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  10 July 1890, Vol. 40, No. 34]

GOSS vs. GOSS

Frank Goss has been sued for divorce by Mattie M., on the ground of cruelty, failure to provide, etc.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  31 July 1890, Vol. 40, No. 37]

Mattie Goss was granted a divorce from Silas F. Goss, Monday, on account of neglect and cruelty.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  09 October 1890, Vol. 40, No. 47]

GUIHER vs. GUIHER

Anna Guiher has sued James for divorce on account of wilful absence.  They were married in 1883, and have a seven-year-old son.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  25 September 1890, Vol. 40, No. 45]

HACKET vs. HACKETT

Sarah E. Hacket, by Miller & Marriot, has sued Frank J. Hackett for divorce on the ground of cruelty in abandoning her.  They were married August 2, 1882, and have one son four years old.  The husband is a barber.  The wife lives at Rome.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  04 December 1890, Vol. 41, No. 3]

HEIN vs. HEIN

Mary A. Hein has sued Nicholas for divorce on the charge of adultery with Lizzie Butcher at Centerburg, and because he is living with her now at Sparta, Ill.  The parties to the suit were married at Loudonville, January 13, 1870.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  20 March 1890, Vol. 40, No. 18]

HENNESY vs. HENNESY

Irene Hennesy Wednesday brought suit for divorce against Alfred Hennesy, through her attorneys, Connolly & Laser.  The petition alleges the parties were married February 13, 1889.  Ever since the marriage, although able to do so, the defendant has failed and refused to furnish her with a home or necessaries of life, so that she has always been compelled to rely on her own exertions for her support and maintenance.  Plaintiff asks for divorce and restoration of her maiden name.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  06 November 1890, Vol. 40, No. 51]

HERR vs. HERR

Francis Herr has sued Benj. F. Herr for divorce and custody of child on account of abandonment and failure to support.  They were married Dec. 26, 1885.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  16 January 1890, Vol. 40, No. 9]

HETTINGER vs. HETTINGER

Jacob Hettinger, who resides a mile east of Independence, sued for a divorce from Sarah on the ground of refusing or neglecting to cohabit or to permit of marital connection for more than three years.  They have been married thirty-six years and have five children, and also grandchildren.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  07 August 1890, Vol. 40, No. 38]

A divorce was granted Jacob Hettinger Monday.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  25 September 1890, Vol. 40, No. 45]

HORNBERGER vs. HORNBERGER

John Hornberger and wife were divorced by Judge McCray Monday evening.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  24 April 1890, Vol. 40, No. 23]

HUGHES vs. HUGHES

Ellen Hughes has sued Scott Hughes for divorce, for failure to live with or provide for her.  They were married at Windsor, Sept. 17, 1881, and have two children.  She asks for alimony and custody of children also.  Her maiden name was Cotter.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  13 November 1890, Vol. 40, No. 52]

JOHNSON vs. JOHNSON

Lillie Johnson has sued John L. for divorce, custody of three-year-old child, restoration of maiden name and alimony on the grounds of his failure to provide.  They were married August 6, 1887.    [MANSFIELD HERALD:  14 August 1890, Vol. 40, No. 39]

KALMERTEN vs. KALMERTEN

Elizabeth Kalmerten has sued Ferdinand Kalmerten for divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness and cruelty.  She asks for the custody of their three children.  The parties were married Oct. 13, 1880.  She alleges that in March, 1890, he pointed a pistol at her and threatened to kill her.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  10 July 1890, Vol. 40, No. 34]

Elizabeth Kallmerten has been granted a divorce from Ferdinand.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  13 November 1890, Vol. 40, No. 52]

KOCHENDERFER vs. KOCHENDERFER

Elizabeth Kochenderfer has sued Nathaniel for divorce, alimony and custody of William and Emma, children, aged 14 and 17 respectively, on the grounds of habitual drunkenness.  She alleges he struck her three times with his fist July 25th., and choked her.  Nate is a well known old habitual drunkard who never fails to get on a "toot" when he comes to town.  He resides north of the city.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  07 August 1890, Vol. 40, No. 38]

LAVER vs. LAVER

Saturday was filed in common pleas court a suit by Emma S. Laver against Philip Laver, Sr., for alimony.  Plaintiff alleges that they were married Sept. 1 last, her name being Miller.  Before marriage an agreement was entered into between them whereby in consideration of $1,000 plaintiff released defendant of any claim to any property that might arise by the marriage.  On Sept. 2, a post nuptial agreement was made which re-affirmed the ante-nuptial contract.  On the 17th. of September a contract of separation as entered into whereby plaintiff was to receive rent for the house she occupied until April 1, 1891, also to own the furniture, except the old portion, besides which she was to receive $100 in consideration of releasing defendant of all claims by reason of said marriage, the defendant at the same time releasing all right he may have in a property belonging to plaintiff in Texas, valued at $500.  Plaintiff claims that her signature to the contracts was procured by misrepresentation in that she was not aware of his true financial standing, which she now learns is about $25,000.  Wherefore she claims alimony.    [MANSFIELD HERALD:  23 October 1890, Vol. 40, No. 49]

Emma S. Laver has been allowed $100 alimony pending the suit for divorce.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  20 November 1890, Vol. 41, No. 1]

LAVER vs. LAVER

Philip Laver, Jr., agreed Saturday, to pay Minnie R. Laver, $1,300, and the alimony case was settled.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  04 December 1890, Vol. 41, No. 3] 

LONG vs. LONG

Mary Long has sued John Long for divorce.  Cruelty.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  16 January 1890, Vol. 40, No. 9]

MASSA vs. MASSA

Minnie M. Massa has sued Henry G. for divorce and alimony on the ground of failure to provide, profligacy and dissipation.  They were married the seventh of last March.  Her former name was Ernst.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  04 December 1890, Vol. 41, No. 3] 

MATTHEWS vs. MATTHEWS

New Cases:  Kittie Matthews vs. Wm. Matthews.  Divorce.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  08 May 1890, Vol. 40, No. 25]

McCONKIE vs. McCONKIE

R.H. McConkie has sued Maud L. for divorce on account of wilful absence.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  24 July 1890, Vol. 40, No. 36]

MEIER vs. MEIER

Geo. Meier has sued for divorce from his wife, Lydia, on the ground of absence for three years.  They were married in 1878.  T.Y. McCray is plaintiff's attorney.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  15 May 1890, Vol. 40, No. 26]

George Meier was granted a divorce from Lydia, Saturday, by Judge May.  She has been absent for ten years.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  25 September 1890, Vol. 40, No. 45]

MIX vs. MIX

Emma C. Mix vs. Truman E. Mix.  Divorce.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  27 November 1890, Vol. 41, No. 2]

Later in the same issue ...

Mrs. Eliza C. Mix, Monday, through Douglass & Douglass, filed a petition for divorce from Truman E. Mix.  Married at Independence, March 21, 1868, five children, oldest 20 years, youngest 5 years.  Habitual drunkenness and cruelty, the last of the latter having occurred Sunday.  Mix was formerly postmaster of Independence but now lives at Mansfield.

MUIR vs. MUIR

A divorce was ... granted to Elizabeth Muir, from George, for habitual drunkenness and neglect.   [MANSFIELD HERALD:  25 September 1890, Vol. 40, No. 45]

OSWALT vs. OSWALT

Mary Oswalt, of Stark county, has sued Charles Oswalt, of this county, for divorce on the ground of failure to provide or live with her.  They were married June 17, 1889, at Maximo, Stark Co.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  14 August 1890, Vol. 40, No. 39]

PETERSON vs. PETERSON

Mary E. Peterson vs. David V.E. Peterson.  Divorce and Injunction.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  27 November 1890, Vol. 41, No. 2]  

Later in the same issue .... 

Mary E. Peterson, Friday, filed a petition for divorce from David Van Every Peterson.  The parties were married June 16, 1887, and one child, Eva Gladeth, now aged three years, is the result of the union.  Plaintiff alleges that defendant has been wilfully absent and had failed to provide for more than three years for plaintiff and child.  Defendant has an undivided interest in 55-1/10 acres of land and in certain farm implements in Green township, Ashland county, which he is about to dispose of.  Plaintiff asks for an injunction, divorce, alimony and restoration to maiden name.  The injunction was allowed by Judge McCray.

RATHBURN vs. RATHBURN

Eliza E. Rathburn has sued William P. for divorce.  They were married at Ontario Feb. 19, 1885, and have three children.  She charges abandonment which compelled her to go to the poor house twice.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  31 July 1890, Vol. 40, No. 37]

Divorce granted on Saturday (Sept. 13th.), on the grounds of gross neglect. [MANSFIELD HERALD:  18 September 1890, Vol. 40, No. 44]

REYNOLDS vs. REYNOLDS

Sadie Reynolds has sued John A. Reynolds for alimony, and he in turn has sued her for divorce.  She charges cruelty and asks that the Pennsylvania company be enjoined from paying him wages.  He alleges she committed adultery with W.B. Obney.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  16 October 1890, Vol. 40, No. 47]

John Reynolds, the target man, who recently sued for divorce alleging adultery with Wm. Obney, has sued the latter for $4.65, which he alleges Obney blackmailed him out of by saying that a certain girl would bring a delicate charge against him, which could be settled in that way.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  23 October 1890, Vol. 40, No. 49]

The Reynolds divorce suit was dismissed Tuesday by Judge McCray who, after hearing the testimony, lectured the parties and told them they ought to live together.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  20 November 1890, Vol. 41, No. 1]

RUTTER vs. RUTTER

Jennie Rutter has sued Seremus Rutter for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  13 March 1890, Vol. 40, No. 17]

SHAFFER vs. SHAFFER

Candace Shaffer was granted a divorce from William, Tuesday, on the ground of adultery and wilful absence.  They were married April 21, 1881, and have one child, which is given the plaintiff in addition to $500 alimony.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  20 November 1890, Vol. 41, No. 1]

SPRENGLE vs. SPRENGLE

Wm. M. Sprengle has sued Maud L. for divorce on the ground of wilful absence.  They were married at Connelsville, Pa., September 30, 1885.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  31 July 1890, Vol. 40, No. 37]

STRATER vs. STRATER

Franklin Strater has sued Mary Strater for divorce on account of the latter refusing to live with plaintiff.  They were married last March.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  13 February 1890, Vol. 40, No. 13]

STRAUSBAUGH vs. STRAUSBAUGH

Thursday, G.W. Strausburg brought suit for divorce from Sarah C. Strausburg.  The parties were married July 3, 1887, at Urbana, and have one child, Gracie, aged 2½ years.  Plaintiff charges that the defendant on October 13, 1889, at the house of Curtis Walker, in the village of Broughton, Paulding county, committed adultery with one Aaron Smith, and since that time has been guilty of adultery with divers persons on divers occasions.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  06 November 1890, Vol. 40, No. 51]

The ground alleged is adultery October 13th., 1889, at Broughton, Paulding county, with one Aaron Smith.  The plaintiff testified that on the day named he went home unexpectedly between 10 and 11 a.m.  He went into the room, where he found their little girl, Gracie, then about 1½ years old.  He looked for his wife and found the stair door locked.  He tried to open it when his wife called.  He did not answer, and his wife doubtless thinking it was the child, opened the door.  On the bed, plaintiff saw Smith sitting in a partially disrobed condition, while his wife was dressed in her night gown.  Neither of the parties denied the charge of adultery when made by the husband.  Smith left the country and plaintiff's wife is now an inmate of a house of questionable reputation kept by one Joseph Franklin.  A deposition by Curtis Walker contained a postal card written by the defendant saying she would not live with the plaintiff again.  A letter was also read from her in which she said that she did not intend that he should take her child Gracie, for she did not belong to him anyhow.  She said she never had any love for anybody but her first love and he was a married man now, so that she supposed that now her love would be of now avail.  She advised plaintiff not to waste his four cents in writing to her, as he could do better by spending it for candy for Abbie whom she learns he is to marry.  The parties were married at Urbana, July 3d., 1889.  Plaintiff charges that she has continued adultery with divers other persons.  Divorce granted.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  25 December 1890, Vol. 41, No. 6]

TURNER vs. TURNER

Mary E. Turner, by Jenner & Tracy, has sued Walter H. Turner for divorce on the ground of adultery with one Madame Rusk.  They were married in 1886, but have no children.  Turner is with his mother in Chicago, and his wife is with her parents in this city.  Turner was formerly a soldier in the regular army and spent last fall in the south.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  06 February 1890, Vol. 40, No. 12]

VAN ZILE vs. VAN ZILE

Alice Van Zile vs. Jess Van Zile.  Charge is cruelty.  Lived together less than three months.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  25 September 1890, Vol. 40, No. 45]

WIDDERS vs. WIDDERS

Verona Widders has been divorced from Elija J. and allowed $1000 alimony and custody of children.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  23 January 1890, Vol. 40, No. 10]

WINSKY vs. WINSKY

Matilda Winsky Thursday sued August for divorce.  They were married last November and so soon as January 10th. following August beat her with a clothes line.  April 15th. he injured her with a large lump of coal and threatened to kill her.  Since then he has at numerous times beat her.  She asks that he be enjoined from disposing of $100 held by his loan association.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  14 August 1890, Vol. 40, No. 39]

The Matilda - August Winsky divorce case has been settled.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  21 August 1890, Vol. 40, No. 40]

WIRICK vs. WIRICK

Sadie Wirick has sued Elmore for divorce on the charge of cruelty and adultery with Mary French or Hellinger.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  05 June 1890, Vol. 40, No. 29]

WIRICK vs. WIRICK

Vera Wirick has sued for divorce on the ground of cruelty, from Frank to whom she was married just a year ago today.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  25 September 1890, Vol. 40, No. 45]

WOLF vs. WOLF

George L. Wolf sued Katharine A. for divorce and custody of children, Wednesday, on the ground of neglect and adultery.  [MANSFIELD HERALD:  16 October 1890, Vol. 40, No. 48]

---

---

<< Back to Divorce Records Index

<< Back to the Richland Co., Ohio Index