Della McCarty vs. R. F. McCarty, divorce.

     Parker Stockton vs. Minnie Stockton, divorce; divorce granted plaintiff.
     Katie Kiger vs. C. H. Kizer, divorce; granted.
     Lucy Hendricks vs. Bill Hendricks, divorce; granted.
     John H. Yates vs. Malinda Yates, divorce; granted.

     Marrietta Ewing vs. W. E. Ewing, divorce.
     W. F. Barnett vs. Mildred Z. Barnett, divorce.

     Annie Herring vs. A. W. Herring, divorce granted plaintiff.

     A. F. Wilson vs. Loena Wilson, divorce.

     One of the most interesting injunction suits filed in the local courts in a long time was presented to Judge J. J. Eckford by Attorney A. I. Hudson, of Wood & Hudson, yesterday afternoon. The petition fully explains itself. It and Judge Eckford's order are given below:
     State of Texas, County of Dallas.--
To the Hon. J. J. Eckford, Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial District Court of Dallas County: Your petitioner, T. B. Reams, brings this suit against Mrs. K. Wolff for an injunction and temporary restraining order and for his cause of action shows to the court:
     1. That plaintiff and defendant, who is a feme sole, reside in Dallas county, Texas.
     2. That heretofore on Sept. 22, 1899, this plaintiff and the defendant entered into a certain verbal contract whereby said defendant agreed to furnish and supply this plaintiff's wife and two children with room and board for the sum of $50 per month, and whereby said defendant further agreed to room and board this plaintiff while he was in town with his wife and said children at the rate of $1 per day in addition to $50 per month for his said wife and children. Plaintiff says that he has paid up the board of his said wife and children to Dec. 22, being the end of the third month under said contract and except as hereinafter set out has always paid said $1 per day when he was in the city as in said contract specified.
     3. That plaintiff says this, his little child, Ora Reams, a girl of 8 years, on about Dec. 1, 1899, contracted a case of scarlet fever, but has now recovered from the same, but is still feeble and weak and unable to be moved from said house, and that his wife is sick and unable to leave or move from said house, and that his wife is sick and unable to leave or move from said house at this time, and that it would be unsafe and dangerous to the lives and health of his said wife and child to move them at this time.
     This plaintiff further says that he has a little boy 6 years of age, which needs and requires the attention and care of its said mother, this plaintiff's wife.
     4. Plaintiff says that on or about Dec. 21, A. D. 1899, he returned to the city from New Orleans and as was his right, went to said Mrs. Wolff's house, No. 178 Masten street, in this city, and she assigned him and his said son to a room on the lower floor of said house, being the first room back of the parlor on the north side, and that he and his said son occupied said room until the morning of Jan. 5, 1900, when said defendant unlawfully and wrongfully locked the door to said room and has since said date, forbidden and prevented this plaintiff from occupying said house or said room.
     5. This plaintiff says that under the said contract above referred to he and his said wife and children have the legal right to remain in and occupy said room for one month from Dec. 22 to Jan. 22 at the prices therein specified, all of which he had repeatedly offered to pay to the defendant.
     6. Plaintiff would further show to the court that his said son can not occupy or go into the room occupied by his mother and sister for the reason that in so doing, he would contract said disease of scarlet fever and thereby his life would be greatly endangered, wherefore he says that said small child needs and requires the care and attention of this plaintiff.
     7. Plaintiff further says that his said wife and child, on account of their sick and helpless condition, require his care and attendance at all times and that it is necessary that he be allowed to remain in said room and in said house as is his right under said contract, which provided that he should have the right to board and lodging in said house at $1 per day as long as his wife and children were there.
     8. This plaintiff further says that he would be irreparably damaged and injured if not permitted to remain in said room and house and that there is no other place he could go to and take his said son so as to prevent said injuries. Plaintiff further says that if not permitted to occupy his said room, that in leaving, he would be compelled to take his said son with him and pay his own board and lodging and the board and lodging of said child, all of which would be to his great damage.
     9. Plaintiff says that he has not adequate remedy at law in the premises, and he therefore prays your honor to grand and issue at once, a mandatory injunction requiring defendant to unlock said door to said room, and a temporary restraining order forbidding the defendant from, in any way, interfering with this plaintiff's use or occupancy thereof, and that on a final hearing hereof, the said injunction be perpetuated, for cost of suit and all other proper relief to which he may in law or equity, be entitled and so will ever pray.
     WOOD & HUDSON
     Attorneys for Plaintiff.

     State of Texas, County of Dallas,--
     Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared T. B. Reams, who after by be being duly sworn, on his oath states that the facts stated in the foregoing petition as facts are true and that those stated on information and belief, he verily believes to be true.
     T. B. REAMS.
     Sworn to and subscribed before me this Jan. 6, A. D., 1900.
     H. W. JONES,
     Clerk District Court, Dallas County,
     By Calhoun Knox, Deputy.

     Jan. 6, 1900. -- Upon considering foregoing petition, it is ordered, upon plaintiff giving bond in the sum of $100, conditioned as required by law, the clerk will issue a temporary restraining order restraining defendant from further interfering with plaintiff's ingress and egress to said room in said house occupied by him and his son, and from preventing plaintiff from access to his wife and daughter, and will cite defendant to show cause at 5 o'clock p. m. Monday, Jan. 8, in the fourteenth judicial district court room to show cause why injunction should not issue as prayed for. J. J. ECKFORD,
     Judge Fourteenth Judicial District.
     It is expected that the hearing to-morrow afternoon will be largely attended.

     Minnie Arthur vs. Samuel Arthur; divorce.

     L. J. Cummins vs. D. W. Cummins; divorce.

     Antonio Zabbia vs. Fragesca Zabbia, divorce.

     Chas. M. Wade vs. Eliza Wade, divorce.

     The following is from the News of Marion, Indiana, of June 22: "One of the pleasant events of the season occurred June 21, at the home of Wes Bowman. The event of joy was the wedding of George P. Marshall and Miss Ida Elsby of Dallas, Tex. The ceremony was performed by the Rev. McMann. The bride was gowned in silk, trimmed with point lace and pearls..."

     Harry L. Richie vs. Ruth Richie; plaintiff is granted a divorce, but costs are to be paid by him.
     Minnie Absher vs. T. W. Absher; divorce granted and plaintiff permitted to resume her maiden name.

     The number of people married during the last four years, and the number of people who became tired of the matrimonial bonds during the same period are very great. As the county becomes more thickly populated, the number of marriages increase; likewise, the number of divorces. The record shows that the greatest number are married in December. November and January come in with a close second.
     The banner week is Christmas week, and especially on Christmas eve day, when the clerk hasn't standing room for the applicants.
In the last four years, County Clerk Albert S. Jackson has issued 3604 marriage licenses.
     The number of divorces is also increasing. There has been a marked increase in the last few years. Not all of the suit that are filed are granted; some are withdrawn and the parties resume domestic relations again. Others are divorced and decide that they can live together peaceably, so are married again.
     There were filed with Henry W. Jones, district clerk, in 1897, 168 divorce suits; in 1898, 200; in 1899, 230; in 1900, to date, 180, making a grand total of 778.

     John Ivy vs. Ada Ivy; divorce granted and plaintiff awarded custody of minor child, Mack Ivy.
     Emma Brockman vs. William Brockman, divorce granted.
     Nannie Abernathy vs. D. B. Abernathy; divorce granted.
     A. W. Downs vs. Rena B. Downs; divorce granted.

     Willie Krantz vs. Oscar Krantz, divorce.
     Tennie Ballentine vs. Charles Ballentine, divorce.

     Nellie Jackson vs. Charles M. Jackson, divorce and injunction.

     Jno. Scott vs. Mary Scott, divorce.

     W. S. Rowe vs. Roxie Rowe, divorce.