1899-11-16-sr-p7-c5-josephine-ditmar-sues-for-additional-alimony

From Reardan History Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

November 16, 1899 Spokesman-Review Page 7 Column 5:

1899-11-16-sr-p7-c5-josephine-ditmar-sues-for-additional-alimony.jpg

JURY DID NOT AGREE.


SECOND SUIT BETWEEN MR. AND MRS. DITMAR.


THEY HAVE BEEN DIVORCED,


Now She Asks $4000 for Care of the Children Since the Decree Was Signed,


DAVENPORT, Wash,, Nov, 13,—From the prominence of the parties Interested the case on trial in the superior court Saturday was of more than usual interest and the court room was filled with spectators. In May, 1893, Mrs. Jogephine Ditmar brought suit in the superior court of Lincoln county for a decree of divorce from her husband, William Ditmar.

After hearing the evidence on both sides A decree was granted the wife and the custody of their five children was given to the mother, The eldest of the children at that time was 15 years old and the youngest 7. The custody of the children was proved for by the woman in her petition or pleadings. The court also gave her the homestead, 160 acres of good farm land, four miles east of Davenport, and horses and farming implements to cultivate it.

Under the decree Mr. Ditmar was compelled to pay all indebtedness incurred prior to the separation and also to pay off a mortgage on the farm. Left with only a timber culture, with but little land under cultivation, Mr. Ditmar soon acquired more land and is again prosperous. It was owing to this state of affairs that the present suit for $4,000 was brought by Mrs. Ditmar to reimburse her for taking care of and educating the children, Judge Caton, assisted by John W, Merritt of Spokane, represented the defendant and H. N. Martin was plaintiff's attorney. Quite an array of witnesses were examined to prove the value of the land and cost of keeping the children, making the trial tedious and long drawn out.

The arguments were made in the evening, and at 10:30 the case was given to the jury. After remaining out all night they failed to agree and were discharged from further consideration of the case. The jurors stood eight for defendant and four for the plaintiff.