Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 40, Number 21, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 November 1907 — DIVORCE JUDGMENT WITHHELD [ARTICLE]

DIVORCE JUDGMENT WITHHELD

Judge Hanley, after hearing the evidence dr as much of it as he cared to, in the suit of Erastus Peacock for divorce, on Friday afterooou, took the case under advisement, and has so far given out no statement of his decision. Mr. Peacock was the first witness and be stated that up to a year ago Mrs. Peacock was always a dutiful wife and a good housekeeper and that the only criticism he has had of the home life has occuurred within th£ year, but that she had within that time neglected the home, refused to prepare his meals and had not given him proper nursing when he was sick. Mrs. Susau Haskell testlflM s&to her having gone to the home to act as housekeeper and that for a week tbiugs went along all right and theu Mrs. Peacock said she desired to assume the management of her own aflairs. She said Mrs. Peacock was not congenial and that she advised each of them to separate. Mrs. Lorena Bartoo, of Morocco, and Mrs. Dora McClure, of Hammond, both thought the home had been a pleasant one until within the past year. They had always regarded the father as a good provider and thought some outside influence had been brought to bear on the mother to create dissatisfaction. Their testimony was by no means a criticism of their mother and each exhibited the greatest regret that they should be placed in a position to decide) between the two. Mrs. Bartoo said she had beaeeched her mother to give np the home and live alternately with she and her sister but this she had refused to do. f

For the defense Mrs. Angeline Hemphill, who had worked in the Peacock home six years ago, testified to the disgruntled attitude oi the plaiutiff in the home, said lie continually growled aud that nothing satisfied him. Said he spoke sharply to his wife and that she had known of Mrs. Peacock crying because of his harsh language. She Raid Mrs. Peacock never complained. Mrs. Peacock told of her efforts to make home agreeable and ot his unappreciative disposition. She said he would i llow her but $3 a week for household expenses. The judge asked several questions about their differences and stated that he did not care to have the defense introduce other wituessess. The fact that the Court stopped the evidence o( the defense indicates that he will not grant the divorce, and it will not be surprising he suggests some means of reuniting them, or, if this is impossible, establishing a means of separation and maintenance, without granting an absolute divorce. The parties were married more than 39 years ago.