Jasper County Democrat, Volume 22, Number 102, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 March 1920 — WOULD POUR HOT LEAD IN EAR [ARTICLE]

WOULD POUR HOT LEAD IN EAR

Of Sleeping Husband, Was Threat of Wife, Saya Complaint. The new divorce complaint of Frank L. Wlldrick vs. Lillie Wildrick of Remington, which was filed in the Jasper circuit court Tuesday, is quite a voluminous document, and in view of the fact that both plaintiff and defendant are well known at Remington, Goodland, Brook, Morocco and Mt. Ayr, where plaintiff has taught school, as well as to many people in and about Rensselaer, The Democrat publishes the complaint in full, omitting some of the headings, etc. John A. Dunlap of this city and M. E. Graves of Morocco are attorneys for plaintiff, whom, it is understood, will present evidence in this case that he held back in the former case because of not wishing it made public: g The plaintiff above named complains of the defendant and says that the plaintiff is now and so. more than two years last past has been a bona fide resident or the state of Indiana and for more than six months last past has been a bona fide resident of Jasper county of said state. That the plaintiff and the defendant were duly married on Jun® 21, 1906, and lived together until the month of May, 1918, at which time the parties separated and have not since lived or co-habited together. That at the time the parties hereto were married plaintiff was engaged in teaching school and has ever since said time followed said profession and is now employed as superintendent of the public schools in Monroe Center, Ill.; that during plaintiff’s life he has aspired to the attainment of proficiency and prominence in his profession and has worked diligently as a student to that end and now holds a life’s license under the laws of Illinois as a teachers Is now and always has been of a studious disposition believing in the value of higher education and enjoying the educational work and the association with people of like temperament. That the defendant acquired only a meager education and is not of a studious disposition, having no as-

pirations or ambition or interest along the educational lines and on account of her lack of knowledge 01 such things and her lack of interest therein she is extremely prejudiced against the persons who profess any knowledge beyond the most ordinary and common branches of learning and treats with contempt all effort of persons interested in and aspiring to such things and especially the efforts, aspirations and ambitions of this plaintiff along said line. That by reason of the different dispositions of" the parties hereto as above set out it soon became manifest in their married life that the parties were unsuited for each other, possessing entirely different Ideas and although this plaintiff has repeatedly tried to prevail upon the defendant to become interested in the things connected with his chosen profession he has been unable to do so, she continuing at all times to treat all his efforts in that behalf with the utmost contempt although they were intended for her higher education, betterment and greater happiness in life and to the end that the parties might be compatible and live happily together, the defendant being a help to the plaintiff in his life work. The defendant, however, refused and has always refused to acquaint herself with anything other than the most ordinary every day affairs of life and is much given to indulgence in neighborhood gossip; that as the plaintiff improved his own education he became naturally thrown in the society of other persons in the same and kindred professions who Were interested in the things this plaintiff is interested in and who were engaged in like work and those persons became the associates of the plaintiff. That on account of the lack of education and refinement the defendant was uncomfortable and ill at ease in the company of such persons as the plaintiff was associated with and refused to move in the society into which the plaintiff’s work in his profession naturally took him and the parties hereto rapidly drifted apart and the defendant has been guilty of the most cruel and inhuman treatment of this plaintiff in this. That on account of her dislike for the plaintiff’s disposition to study she continually complained and nagged at the plaintiff when he tried to pursue his studies at his own home, making sarcastic and insult-

ing remarks regarding his work and his efforts to improve himself in his effort to accomplish something worth while in life, the benefit of which she would be the natural recipient, had she acted and treated this plaintiff as a wife of ordinary common sense should. That on account of her attitude toward the plaintiff and her actions toward him he was unable to pursue his study and school work at home and was obliged to do the work at the public school building or public library in the towns where during said time he was employed, and in order that he might get the necessary work prepared in connection with his teaching and purpose of pursuing other lines of study he was obliged to spend a great deal of his time at said places and after doing so upon returning to his home the defendant would upbraid him on account of his absence from home and falsely accused him of Improperly associating with other women and neglecting his home, at such times using the most uncultured and insulting language possible and making threats to the plaintiff that the defendant would do everything In her power to hinder the plaintiff in his work, that she would prevent him the attainment of any degree of success and that so long as he persisted in such work or in attempting to do anything other than simply to become a day laborer and live in the sphere in which the defendant lived, thought and acted she would continue to make life a hell on earth for this plaintiff. That during all of said time when said plaintiff would be obliged to attend different entertainments or public gatherings the defendant would purposely neglect plaintiff’s clothing and would so manage the handling of the laundry that plaintiff would continually find himself without clean linen, and when he inquired about the same the defendant would indulge in a tirade against his attending the particular function intended to be attended and would say that he could go and buy new linen, that she did not propose to launder his clothes to be worn at such affairs, and on occasion plaintiff brought a suit of clothes home which he had had pressed and cleaned preparatory to dressing in the same to attend a public gathering in connection with the schools of Remington and that on said occasion he invited his wife to attend the same in company with him but she refused to go, saying that she would not be seen in his company and attempting to criticise plaintiff for wanting to go to such places and that she flew into a rage, grabbed said suit of clothes and after wrinkling it as much as possible by twisting the pieces thereof in her hands threw the suit out into the yard. That the defendant became and for a number of years has been insanely jealous of this plaintiff and has continually nagged at the plaintiff, quarreled with him without any provocation and has made his home life unbearable to the point where plaintiff has taken his meals away from home as much as possible to avoid the constant wrangle and strife when he was at his own home, then when he did return home the defendant would complain and quarrel with the plaintiff because he had been away from home, that she repeatedly said to the plaintiff that she had married the wrong person, that she wished the plaintiff would die, that some time she would put poison into his victuals or that some time when he was asleep she would pour hot lead in his ears. The defendant repeatedly told the plaintiff that she did not love him and had no affection whatever for him,, that she did not care how soon he left her, that she wished* he would leave her but there was one thing sure —he was married to her and he would always have to support her; that she would never let him obtain a divorce and that she would ruin him financially so that when she was through with him he would not have a penny to his name. She not only talked as above set out to the plaintiff but made a practice of talking in the same manner to the neighbors about the plaintiff and has said that no difference where the plaintiff went she would get in her work and see that he was prevented from living in peace no difference where he located, that the defendant has repeatedly said to the plaintiff and to others that she could prevent plaintiff frofti obtaining a divorce foi the reason that there had already been 10 divorces in the Wildrick family. That as the fruits of the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant there has been born to them one child, a boy, who is now eight years of age, who until the time when the plaintiff departed permanently from his home and separated from the defendant, has been obliged to live in the atmosphere created by the. domestic relations existing between the plaintiff and the defendant. ’ Association with the defendant becoming entirely unbearable years ago the plaintiff and defendant have occupied separate rooms and lived

apart In their own house, but during such time during the day as the parties hereto met in their home or elsewhere strife and wrangle, contention and quarrels continued and on account of said conditions becoming entirely and absolutely unbearable and out of consideration for their child, the plaintiff in May, 1918, left the home and has not since returned, although during said absence he has contributed and provided support for his wife and child. That during the time that the plaintiff and the defendant lived together and since they have separated, ever since their child has been old enough to understand the defendant has sought to poison the child’s mind against his father ano is now making an effort to teach the child to disrespect and hate his own father. Wherefore, plaintiff asks that the legal bonds of matrimony existing between the plaintiff and defendant be dissolved and that plaintiff be granted a divorce, that he have the care and custody of said child or in the event this be not granted that the plaintiff have the privilege of educating said child, that he be permitted at all proper times and places to visit said child and for all other proper relief. SECOND PARAGRAPH For a second further and other paragraph of complaint herein the plaintiff avers and says that he is now and for more than two years last past has been a bona fide resident of the state of Indiana, and for more than six months last past has resided in Jasper county, Ind. That the plaintiff and defendant were duly married on June 21, 1906, and lived together until the month of May, 1918, at which time the parties separated and have not since lived or co-hablted together. That in the year 1916 the defendant without cause wholly abandoned and deserted this plaintiff and while the parties since said time until the date of their separation lived in the same house, they did not live together as husband and wife, but that they occupied separate rooms and only made a pretense of living together as husband and wife. Wherefore, plaintiff sues and asks that the bonds of matrimony exists Ing between plaintiff and defendant be dissolved and that plaintiff be granted a divorce and for all other proper relief. — Frank Wildrick being duly sworn upon his oath says that he is now and for five years Jast past has been a resident of Jasper county, Indiana, and during said time has resided in Remington, Carpenter township of said county, and that his profession is that of a superintendent of schools.