Mr. Albert Sidney Burleson and Miss Adele Lubbock Steiner were married Sunday, Dec. 22, at Austin, Tex.

     George W. Lee vs. Sarah Lee; divorce granted as prayed for; costs taxed against the plaintiff.
     James Brooks vs. Lula Brooks; divorce.

     Nannie E. Fisher vs. John A. Fisher; divorce granted; costs taxed against defendant, care and custody of minor.

     Lena Field vs. Ben Field; divorce; decree granted.

     The divorce suit of Dale vs Dale was on trial in the Fourteenth Judicial district court this morning. The wife is the plaintiff. From the evidence introduced, it appears that Dale enjoys the proud distinction of being the husband of two wives and has never taken the trouble to secure a divorce from No. 1, who is a resident of Pennsylvania. The story goes that No. 1 married Dale twenty years ago in an eastern state and lived with him for seventeen years, one child being the offspring of their union. After seventeen years of happiness unalloyed, Dale decided to seek a home in the boundless west and the partner of his joys and sorrows asserts that she disposed of her jewelry and other valuables to obtain the necessary funds to defray expenses of the trip. From that day to this, she has not been able to set her eyes upon him or entwine her nimble fingers in his hirsute appendages. It is asserted that Dale came to the conclusion that a change of locations involved a change of wives and that he found a second partner in Texas, who is now the plaintiff in the divorce suit referred to above. The defendant has accumulated property to the value of several thousand dollars, and it is surmised that the "women in the case" are not averse to a "divy" of the spoils.

     Sarah E. Fitzgerald vs. Cary W. Fitzgerald; defendant's general and special demurrers overuled; divorced refused; costs taxed against plaintiff.

     The following cases were disposed of yesterday in Judge Burke's court:
     Nannie E. Fisher vs. John A. Fisher; divorce granted, costs taxed against defendant; care and custody of minor, Eggleton Fisher, awarded to plaintiff, plaintiff allowed $50 attorneys' fees, to be taxed as costss against the defendant.

     Dr. B. R. Bluitt of Dallas and Miss Cornelia J. Ford of Nashville, Tenn., were wed at the bride's home on the 28th instant, and arrived home yesterday. Presents were numerous and worth an aggregate of $300.

     The following cases were disposed of in Judge Burke's court yesterday:
     Sarah E. Fitzgerald vs. Cary W. Fitzgerald; defendant's general and special demurrers overruled. Divorce refused; costs taxed against plaintiff.

     Suits were filed as follows:
      Madaline Schober vs. Charles Schober, suit for divorce and for partition of property valued at $34,000.
      Nancy Anderson vs. Tom Anderson, suit for divorce on account of cruel treatment.

     Hannah Drechsler vs. Joseph Drechsler; divorce. According to petition of plaintiff, she married the defendant in Europe in 1886, and she left him in 1889. Defendant, it is alleged, is an "excessive drunkard" and cruelly treated her so as to make her life perfectly miserable. Plaintiff asks for a judgment dissolving the bonds of matrimony and the custody of their little daughter, Gisella.

     On the 10th day of December, at the elegant home of the bride in this city, Mrs. M. E. Whittemore and Col. Madison Wear were united in marriage by Justice John Henry Brown. the lady is the possessor of a goodly share of worldly goods and Col. Wear is well known in the southern part of the state, where he, for many years, conducted a large plantation, and was held in high repute by a large circle of friends. Congratulations poured in upon the elderly couple on the consummation of the marriage, and the union was looked upon as a most fitting one, and that a full share of happiness would fall upon the newly-wedded pair no one doubted.
     Late last evening, however, a sensation was created by Kearby & McClure, attorneys for Mrs. Wear, filing a petition for divorce in the office of the clerk of the district court. At least, the very few who caught on to the contents of the petition of the fair plaintiff were surprised, and it is left for the TIMES-HERALD to give general publicity to the second chapter of the story, the first installment having appeared in these columns a few short weeks ago. The petition alleges that plaintiff has "some property, her home, etc.; that her nephew and adopted son resided with her for many years prior to her marriage with defendant; that within a very few hours after their said marriage, defendant informed her said adopted son that, this property, meaning plaintiff's home, was his property, and that her adopted son could not remain there; that defendant then and there began to arbitrate, and in a most offensive manner to take charge of everything owned and possessed by plaintiff, using her house during the entire time defendant occupied it, for, and as a resort for his drunken carousals; that he was habitually drunk, indulging in low profane and disgusting language to the humiliation, mortification and disgust of plaintiff and to the annoyance of plaintiff's neighbors and friends and plaintiff's guests, who were occupying her house with her. That the said defendant was constantly boasting to plaintiff of the number of men he had killed, the usual way in which he had so killed them, thereby preying upon plaintiff's fears to an extent bordering upon insanity; that said defendant had a large revolver which he always carried upon his person, and which, he was continually exhibiting to plaintiff; that on the night of the 15th of December, defendant drew said revolver upon plaintiff and her said adopted son, and afterward said to plaintiff that it was with the utmost difficulty that he, defendant, restrained himself killing plaintiff and her said son; that on or about the 16th of December and divers times thereafter, the said defendant said that he would kill plaintiff and her said son; that on or about the 28th of December, that said defendant violently forced himself upon plaintiff in her room, and with his threats to kill her so alarmed her, plaintiff, that she fell to the floor in an unconscious condition; that said plaintiff was perfectly unconcerned about plaintiff's condition and offered no assistance whatever; that some of the inmates sent for doctors who came and directed defendant to go rapidly for medicine for plaintiff; that defendant left the room, and as he did so, remarked, "D--m her; let her die; I don't care;" that said defendant was absent for about four hours; that some one else was dispatched for medicine; that plaintiff remained in a precarious and dangerous condition for sometime, whereupon plaintiff says that the acts and doings of said defendant are and were so cruel and outrageous as to render their living together unsupportable. She prays citation hereof and on final hearing that the bond of matrimony hitherto existing between them be dissolved and that plaintiff be restored to all the rights of a femme sole, and that she be restored to her original name, M. E. Whittemore, for all general and special relief."
     The high standing of the parties and other features of the case make it one of the most sensational divorce suits that has ever engaged the attention of a court in Dallas county.

     A suit for divorce was filed in the district court by Hannah Dreschler against her husband, Joseph Dreschler. The plaintiff sets forth in her petition that they were married in Europe, Dec. 11, 1886, and lived together as husband and wife until Dec. 2_, 1889, when she was forced to leave defendant on account of cruel and inhuman treatment. She further charges her husband with threatening her on various occasions, and that on the 16th day of August, 1889, he assaulted her and beat her in a cruel manner. He is an excessive drunkard, she alleges, and has kept her in constant fear by studied vexations on his part that has made her life miserable. They have one child, Gisella by name, aged 2 1/2 years, and asks the court award her the custody award her the custody of the child.

      S. S. Brelsford vs. J. F. Brelsford; divorce. According to the petition, the parties were married in 1873 and separated in Feb. 1889. Three children are the fruits of the union, Ward Brelsford, aged 16 years; Frank, aged 14 years, and Beaumont, aged 4 years. Plaintiff alleges failure to support, cruel treatment and habitual drunkenness on the part of the defendant. She asks that the bonds of matrimony be dissolved and the custody of the children be awarded to her, and also the household furniture. If the story of plaintiff be true, as alleged in the petition, she is certainly entitled to a divorce, and everything else she asks for at the hands of the court.

     Colum B. Lemaster vs. Maude W. Lemaster; divorce; judgment for Plaintiff.

     "James Vanston, who figures in the winsome Mrs. Weber's sensation published in the TIMES-HERALD, is one of the most consumate scoundrels I have ever known," remarked a well known judge to the Lounger last evening. "I defended him on several occasions when the gates of the pen yawned to receive him, but there is nothing that he would do that would cause me any surprise. His wife, who separated from him years ago, is a noble woman and his sons, now young men grown, are as upright and honorable men as you can find anywhere. The boys, with their own earnings, provide their mother a comfortable house and all the comforts of life at Mesquite. She is the daughter of a noted Dublin minister of the church of England, and her family is one of the oldest in the famous capital of Ireland. For a grand rascal, Vanston has one of the most estimable families I have ever known. He is not good on earth, and if he lives and does not mend his ways, the penitentiary will catch him one of these days."

     Robert Payne vs. Julia Payne; divorce; judgment for plaintiff.

     Cora C. Gamble vs. W. R. Gamble; divorce; Edward Gray appointed attorney ad litem to represent non-resident defendant.

     S. J. Boyle vs. Charles Boyle; divorce; dismissed by plaintiff.

     Many sad phases of life are developed in the divorce court. Saturday, the Lounger was an interested spectator in the Forty-fourth judicial district court, presided over by that very erudite and affable gentleman, Judge Charles Fred Tucker. A divorce case was called, that of Tiddle vs. Tiddle. The wife was the plaintiff. She was a large fine-looking woman of thirty, and her lot in life, since her girlhood, was a hard one. Ten years ago, she married in Mississippi, and a few days later, was sent to her brother's home to visit. The husband took advantage of her absence to board a passing train, en route to Texas. She followed him, and for five years, they led a sorry existence. Six years ago, Tiddle again deserted her and she has not laid eyes on him since. One of the witnesses testified that the lady, who was living in the country at the time, had hoed corn in the fields to earn a living for her family until such time as she was given more lucrative and lighter work. It did not take the judge very long to grant the deserted wife a decree. There is also the humorous side of life developed in these proceedings. A young man named Reed sued his wife for divorce and stated that she was an inmate of a house of evil repute in the city of Newberg, N. Y. "Are there any children involved?" asked the judge. "Yes, your honor," spoke up the plaintiff's lawyer. "One, born about eighteen months after the woman ran away from my client." The comments of the court convulsed the spectators. "Eighteen months you say; well, that don't count; we'll let the defendant keep that child," and Reed walked out of the court room a free man.
     The Lounger ran against Frank Darby, one of Sheriff Lewis' most energetic deputies, last evening. In response to an inquiry, "What's the news?" he answered. "Well, Jake Fischel, the Polish Jew, who made a target of Wasserman, a countryman, has been indicted for assault with intent to murder." Fischel is at the hospital and has almost entirely recovered from his self-inflicted wounds. His is the only case on record, I believe, where a man attempted to blow out his brains by shooting a ball into the lower limbs. Wasserman, by the way, is convalescing rapidly and is good for many years to come. Fischel's wife is at dagger points with her liege lord and master, it is said. She is Mrs. Fischel No. 7, and refuses to withdraw her suit for divorce.

     Thomas Moran and Allie Aubris, charged with adultery,were on trial in the county court yesterday afternoon. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

     Viola Holland vs. Charles Holland; divorce...
     Lena Ludwig vs. Otto Ludwig; divorce; judgment for plaintiff; plaintiff restored to her maiden name.

     Willie Burk vs. C. J. Burke; divorce
     Mattie G. Kunz vs. John B. Kunz; divorce
     Adaline F. Fuchs vs. William P. Fuchs, divorce; the parties were married in September 1888, and separated in January, 1890. Cruel treatment, adultery, etc., are among the charges alleged by the plaintiff.

     Samuel Helmick and Mrs. Alberta Dailey, of this city, were married at Gainesville, Saturday last. The parties are residents of Dallas and claim to have been married several years ago in the Indian Territory. Judge Boarman's decision, coupled with the fact that parties had written to their old home, at Urbana, O., that they were not married, induced Helmick and Mrs. Dailey to have the knot tied again, this time under the laws of Texas. The couple have returned to the city. It is understood that other parties who were married in the nation, without license, contemplate going through another ceremony more binding that the first in the eyes of the law.

     Oliver H. Penock vs. Sallie P. Penock, divorce. The parties to this suit are said to be prominent, and from the secrecy which prevails, the plaintiff does not desire the public to obtain the charges on which the application for a dissolution of the marriage bonds is based. The attorney filed the suit himself. Even the clerks were not permitted to profane the sacred document with their rude and heathenish orbs. A cold bluff was given a TIMES-HERALD reporter who sought to obtain the information and it made him hot under the collar. However, he did not despair, and from a friend of the plaintiff, after hard and unceasing toil, extracted the following kernels of knowledge. The parties were married in Grafton, West Virginia, and the woman is as beautiful as a Spanish houri. Plaintiff did all in his power to make her life happy and her surroundings agreeable, but she had a penchant for the society of gentlemen other than her liege lord, he asserts, and distributed her favors with a reckless abandon that created a sensation in the circles in which she moved, and when the story of her wrongdoing reached the ears of the injured husband, there was a scene followed by a separation. The defendant, so it is alleged, is charged with adultery with divers persons at divers times and places, ranging from West Virginia to Georgia. Mrs. Penock is not a resident of this city, and it is gently whispered that something in the nature of a cyclone will take place in the neighborhood when she reads the contents of that petition for a divorce so zealously guarded from the cruel eye of the public by the alleged injured husband and his lynxed-eyed guardian of the school of Blackstone and Kent.

     Cassie Stovall vs. William J. Stovall; divorce. After filing the suit, attorney for plaintiff placed the papers in "his inside pocket" and hied himself away.

     Mattie G. King vs. John B. King, divorce; judgment for plaintiff for divorce as prayed for; property to be divided in accordance with the agreement on file.

     P. A. Benito was granted a new trial. He was fined $750 and costs last week by a jury for having sustained adulterous relations with his stepdaughter.

     Paralle A. Higginbotham vs. Joseph A. Higginbotham; divorce.

     "Uncle John" Davis, an aged and decrepit colored man, was at the court house in a "heap o'trubble," as he expressed it, this morning. The old darkey gave a TIMES-HERALD reporter an insight to his ailment. Ten years ago, he married a buxom wench, many years his junior, She lived with him six weeks and he claims took from him $75 dollars in gold and then took on with a buck nearer her own age. "Uncle John" hired a lawyer to get him a divorce, and was granted it, to the best of his knowledge and belief. Three weeks ago, he took unto himself a second partner in the person of Jennie Scott, and then his troubles began. Wife No. 1 called on him yesterday and said: "Nigga, you hab done gone and committed mahogony and I'se er gwine to put yer in jail. Yer shan't lib wid dat dar young nigger. No, sah." The old man was badly scared and spent the greater part of to-day in searching the divorce archives in the clerk's office to find his name, if possible, among those granted relief. Justice John Henry Brown finally told him to go home and tell his tormentor to go to hades.

     Dallas is looked upon as a paradise for divorce lawyers and a glance at the dockets of the various courts will convince the casual observer that marriage is a failure in hundreds of instances in this city and county.

     The case of the State of Texas against Joseph Longmere, charged with seduction, is on trial this afternoon, Special Judge Wooten presiding. The prosecuting witness, a pretty and modest girl, with a little child in her arms, is present. Longmere is a merchant at Farmer's Branch on the Denton road.

     Dennis Murphy, living near Scyene, arrested for wife beating.

     Mary Weaver vs. Henry E. Weaver, divorce. The plaintiff's tale of woe is harrowing in the extreme, and to her marriage was a lottery in which she drew worse than a blank. In 1888, in the city of Dallas, Mary and Henry were wed. Before all the sweets of the honeymoon had been tasted, Henry refused to support the wife of his bosom. He neglected her, she alleges, he refused to provide for her wants, he took her clothing and shoes and pawned them for money to feed his appetite for whiskey, and on January 23, 1890, he introduced the straw that broke the camel's back--he beat the plaintiff in a shocking manner. She withdrew from his society then and there, and asks the court to remove the incubus that weighs down her young life.

     Flavia H. Busch vs. Eugena F. Busch, divorce; N. G. Turney appointed to represent defendant, a non resident.
     Lena Ludwig vs. Otto Ludwig; judgment for plaintiff and plaintiff restored to her maiden name.
     The divorce suit of Schwaub vs. Schwaub, wherein the wife sues for a separation, was withdrawn.

     Henrietta Schwurb vs. P. T. Schwurb; divorce.

     DENVER, Col., Feb. 21.--Mrs. Della Miller, who, with her sister, Daisy Welch, arrived from Dallas, Texas, Monday, was at the police headquarters last night, half crazed with grief and anxiety because she could not find her husband. About six weeks ago, Mr. Miller disposed of his business interests and property in Dallas, and in company with his wife, went to Sedalia, Mo., on a visit. Mr. Miller had letters of credit on Kansas City for about six or seven thousand dollars, and was looking for a location for some sort of business. Three weeks ago, their visit in Sedalia was terminated and the couple went to Kansas City. After looking over the city, he determined to locate in Denver. He drew out his money at Kansas City and sent his wife back to Dallas to see to the packing and shipping of their household effects to this city, and said he would leave the next day for Denver and buy a home for them, which he would have in readiness by the time she could get there.
     Mrs. Miller carried out her part of the programme, and arrived in the city last Monday night. She had not received a word from her husband, but supposed he was too busy to write and that he would meet her on her arrival in the city.
     Mrs. Miller and her sister stopped at the Albany hotel over night and the next day, started out in search of the husband. Inquiry developed the fact that he had never been in Denver and it is not known when he left Kansas City.
     He had a friend in this city named George Roberts, but he has not seen or heard of Miller, or that he had even left Dallas. As Miller is believed to have had in his possession at least $5000, Mrs. Miller is of the opinion that he has been murdered for his money.
     The poor woman was almost distracted, and any mention of her husband brought tears to her eyes.
     She is a quiet, well-dressed lady, and gave many evidences of good breeding. The couple have been married three years, and their domestic relations have been very happy and never marred by any connubial infelicity. Mr. Miller's relatives live in Easton, O., and Mrs. Miller's folks are prominent in business and social circles in Dallas.

     The papers were filed in a sensational divorce suit in the office of the district court to-day. Mrs. P. J. Puckett brings suit for a divorce against P. W. Puckett. Plaintiff alleges in her petition that she married defendant in this city on the 22d day of December, 1887, and lived with him until December, 1888. At the time of the marriage, she supposed that she was the lawful wife of Puckett, and their union was free from strife until she made the terrible discovery that Puckett had deceived her; even worse than that. She was the victim of a bigamous marriage, and had no claim on the sacred name of wife. In Craig county, Virginia, August 24, 1880, Puckett wooed, and won Miss Martha A. Mills. The lady is a resident of that county, according to the petition of plaintiff, and has never been divorced from her recreant spouse. For these good and sufficient reasons, Mrs. Puckett No. 2 asks that the marriage be declared null and void and, for other relief generally extended in such cases.

     Elizabeth Groscup vs. William Groscup; divorce; decree granted.

     Thomas Nichols vs. Mary A. Nichols, divorce; judgment for plaintiff as prayed for; $25 allowed to attorney.

     Addie Chapman vs. James E. Chapman, divorce; decree granted.

     Augusta J. Welch vs. C. E. Welch; divorce.
     John W. Adams vs. Mary Adams; divorce.

     Last evening, a courier ran into the jail and notified the officers that a man was beating his wife in a shocking manner in a house at the corner of Jefferson and Jackson streets. Deputy Charles Crush went in hot haste to the place designated and arrested James Hanlon on the charge of assault and battery. The prisoner was released on a $500 bond, which he readily obtained. The deputies say that the victim furnished ample evidence, judging from her appearance that she had been roughly handled.

     The following suits were brought in the district court to-day:
Cordy C. Clifton vs. Mamie Clifton, divorce. The parties were married at Galveston, May 10, 1882, and spearated on Jan. 30, 1890. Plaintiff avers that the "27th day of January, in the city of Dallas, and at divers other times and places, defendant committedd adultery and had carnal knowledge with one Paul Clifton," wherefore, he prays for a dissolution of the marriage ties and the custody of the two children born of the union.
     E. F. Reeves vs. E. C. Reeves, divorce. Plaintiff alleges in her petition that on the 17th day of May, 1887, she married defendant in the city of Dallas and that he is now a resident of Kaufman county. A year after the solemnization of the marriage, defendant began to beat and abuse plainiff and refused to privide for her wants. In 1888, she became deathly sick and was confined to her room for several weeks. Defendant failed to provide her with money or medicine, leavintg her an object of charity on the hands of her neighbors, spending his time in vile dens and low dives and abandoning himself to debauchery of the most disgusting character.      Plaintiff has never lived with him since, and as he has never offered to contribute to her support, she asks for a decree of divorce and other relief customary to grant in such cases.

     Bettie Hall has sued Al. Hall for divorce, alleging abandonment, and giving defendant anything but a flattering send off. The parties were married in Dallas county, December 25, 1882, and one year afterward, defendant abanoned her, taking with him, a woman named Minnie. He lived with Minnie for several years, according to the plaintiff, a child being born to them in the meantime, when she deserted him. Hall took the little girl and cast his lot with another woman. In view of all these indignities visited upon her, plaintiff is of the opinion that she is entitled to a divorce and the custody of her six-year-old son, Newton, by name, and other relief usually granted in such cases.

     Annie Cook vs. Jim Cook, divorce. The parties were tied in October, 1889, and lived together thirty days. Plaintiff alleges that defendant is now living with another woman.
     Louisa Vincerich vs. Cormo Vincerich; divorce. The parties were married in Dallas in the year 1885, and in 1887, Cormo deserted his wife and has not since returned to her loving arms.

     Bertha Stephenson vs. Charles Stephenson; divorce.

     Cassie Stovall vs. W. J. Stovall; divorce; permission to substitute lost papers granted.

     T. Billington was served with a citation to-day on a suit for divorce, brought by Mrs. Mary Billington of this city. It is claimed by those who know that Billington recently visited California, and during his residence in that state, obtained a divorce from his wife. She had already instituted proceedings in the courts of Texas, and to-day was the first chance the officer had to serve the papers. The troubles of this couple have already been aired, hence a repetition is not necessary in these columns.

     The following cases were disposed of:
     Reese[?] Myles vs. Thos. Myles, divorce; continued for service by publication.

     J. P. Cross was arrested by the police last night, charged with committing an assault on his wife. Cross was drinking.

     J. M. Helmstetter, the alleged bigamist, was also granted a continuance. He is the individual who lived with a woman thirteen years as his wife, three children having been born to them in the meantime, and then abandoned her to espouse another woman. Wife No. 2 sticks to him and visits the alleged bigamist at the jail at short intervals. Wife No. 1 is in Collin county, and the case was continued in order to allow the state an opportunity to send for the wife of thirteen years standing, to testify against her recreant spouse.

     Special Judge [Bassett], to-day, granted a decree of divorce to Mary E. Allen from George P. Allen. The plaintiff has not lived with her husband since 1882, and the divorce was granted on the grounds of desertion and drunkenness. The parties were married in Livingston county, Mo., and have two children, both girls, aged twelve and fifteen. The mother is given the custody of the children.

     J. S. Kendrick vs. Eliza J. Kendrick; divorce.

     Lena A. Fields vs. Ben Fields; divorce. Lena alleges that she was married to defendant on the 7th day of October, 1889, that he refused to provide for her, was guilty of continual and excessive cruelty and cursed and abused her. In the words of the attorney, who, like Silas Wegg, dropped into poetry,

     The last act took place on November 5, scarcely a month after the knot had been welded. There are no children or property involved. Plaintiff asks for a decree dissolving the bonds hitherto contracted and she wants it quick.
     Lillie Thompson sues W. A. Thompson for a dissolution of the marriage tie. She married him in 1883, and a year after the marriage, he began to show the cloven loaf, as it were. He failed to provide for her, became addicted to the flowing bowl, cursed and maltreated her and made life unbearable. On March 4, 1890, he abandoned plaintiff. In her petition, she asserts that she has made her own living by the aid of the needle, and in canvassing as a book agent. During her absence from home, defendant invited a woman, Mrs. L. Vie, to their rooms on divers times, and made a place of assignation out of the abode. She alleges that he skipped to Waco when she discovered proofs of his infidelity and is now basking in the smiles of Mrs. Vie in that city.

     This morning, a young woman carrying a beautiful two-year-old child, entered the office of Capt. J. C. Arnold, chief of police.
     "I came to see if you would help me, sir," she said as she pushed back her bonnet and revealed a face, which was not without a beam of hope.
     "Where do you live?" the officer asked.
     "On Dallas branch, near the Belt Line stables. I moved there yesterday."
     "Are you destitute?"
     "Yes, sir. I have been sick since last Christmas and I am just getting out. The doctor says I may go to work soon. I haven't earned a nickle since Christmas."
     "Are you married?"
     "Yes, sir."
     "Where is your husband?"
     "He left me five months ago, sir," and here the poor woman gave vent to a flood of tears. Gathering her composure, she conintued:      "He went to Waxahachie to find work. I received one letter from him and then two months passed and I did not hear again. I went to find him and he was gone. I have not heart from him since."
     "What is your husband's name?"
     "Arthur McBride. He drove a coal wagon and he drank sometimes."
     "What is your baby's name?" asked the chief, as he noticed the fine little boy who was as playful and happy, seemingly, as he could be.
     "He is named after his father," and again she could not keep back the tears.
     Capt. Arnold was convinced that she was worthy [of] the city's charity and he gave her an order to the mayor for $3 and a load of wood.
     As she left the room, she said: "My neighbors have been very kind to me, and if I have good luck and health, you'll not have to help me again. I think I can find employment."

     Mattie Allen vs. Antony Allen, for divorce.

     Applicants for divorces are as numerous as ever. The average is two a day, notwithstanding revivals and all other efforts to reclaim tough humanity from ways that are dark.
     Lillie B. Crapser wants a divorce from Charles S. Crapser. They were married September 22, 1885, and lived happily until December 1885, when Charles secured what spare cash his young bride possessed and without even a parting kiss, took Horace Greeley's advice. He never returned and the deserted wife asks that the bonds be severed and her maiden name, Lillie Hartsfield, restored.
     Mrs. S. C. Strader is another woman who believes that marriage is a failure, at least with J. M. Strader, her husband. They were married in Taylor county, Feb. 20, 1887, and Strader deserted her in 1889. According to the story of plaintiff, he "beat her, abused her, cursed her, and made life miserable." She asks for the custody of her boy, Frank, aged two years.

     A very intelligent, well-dressed lady appeared at the office of sthe prosecuting attorney to-day, and made affidavit against her husband, charging him with assault. The tears trickled down her cheeks as she said, "I regret to take this course, but my husband is cruelly beating me and he should be punished." the warrant was issued for the arrest of the alleged wife-beater, McDowell by name, who resides in the White Rock bottoms. McDowell visited Dallas, imbibed freely of tamerack and other extracts of pine-top and was in a fighting humor when he reached home. His wife chided him for appearing before her in a befuddled condition and forgetting his manhood, he slapped her.

     A middle-aged man haunted the corridors this morning. He wished to make affidavit against his wife and the destroyer of his home for living in open and notorious adultery. He alleges that the pair called at a boarding house on Elm street, registered as man and wife under assumed names and remained there until exposed by one of the boarders. The grand jury will investigate the case.

     A Dallas lawyer says he has filed no less than twenty-seven applications for divorce during the past fifteen months, an average of nearly two a month. Out of the number tried to date, he has lost but one case.

     D. H. Bultmeir is an American citizen of Teutonic nativity. He came from the banks of the Rhine, and he wooed and married a fraulein in 1864, twenty-six years ago. In 1869, they decided to better their fortunes by crossing the briny deep, and cross it they did, arriving in Texas that year. Bultmeir, in his petition for divorce, says "that she made home happy until 1886, when she began to change, and make things lively for her "Yacob Strauss." She frequently called him a liar, a son of a gun and other pet names in her delicious broken English; and in 1888, she broke out in a new place and advised him to secure another wife. On the 29th day of March, 1889, she drew a pistol on the plaintiff and ordered him to dance to her music, which he did quite lively. She threatened to kill him that day, but finally desisted and marched out of the house, never to return--no doubt to the intense satisfaction of her spouse. Bultmier is of the opinion that these constitute good grounds for divorce, and he asks for a decree dissolving the bonds forged in Germany more than a quarter of a century ago. Great country this.

     A girl 18 years old, married, who is attending one of the public schools of the city, has filed for divorce under an assumed name.

     The case of J. M. Helmstetter, charged with bigamy, terminated to-day in the Fourteenth judicial district court by the jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessing his punishment at five years in the penitentiary. The facts in the case have been heretofore given publicity in these columns. Helmstetter lived with the lady whom the jury believe be his wife for thirteen years and a flock of little children sprung up around them. A year ago, he moved to Nebraska, where he deserted his family during the summer and returned to Dallas. In November last, he married a young lady named White. The deserted wife followed him to this city and secured his arrest. Helmstetter admitted that he had lived with the woman as his wife and that he was the father of her children. He swore, however, that no marriage contract exited, that he found his wife in a negro assignation house and deliberately placed upon his own children the brand of illegitimacy. Barry Miller's address to the jury was one of the most scorching indictments the lips of man ever framed in criminal annals in Dallas. The instructions of Judge Muse were impartial. The jury did not waste much time, but voted unanimously that Helmstetter was entitled to all that the statutes allows, and accordingly gave the highest punishment, five years. Mizenheimer, attorney for the prisoner, says that an appeal will be taken to the court of appeals.

     Geo. W. C. Trezevant of Delhi, La., and Miss Jane C. Taylor, aunt of Mrs. C. Doremus, of this city, were married last night by Rev. A. P. Smith. They departed at once for Delhi, their future home. The bridgegroom is a well-known physician in northern Louisiana.

     C. O. Amburn vs. J. H. Amburn, divorce; F. D. Casey appointed attorney.
     Mary E. McCane vs. John McCane, divorce; decree as prayed for and plaintiff granted the right to resume her surname of Wheeler, the name of her first husband, and plaintiff is to have all the community property acquired during her marriage with defendant; plaintiff has judgment for costs.

     Several days ago, John Foche and his wife sold their homestead in the northeastern portion of the city for a cash consideration amounting to something like $900. They are German people and their married life appeared to be a turbulent sea of matrimonial discord. Up to three months ago, the family consisted of Foche and his wife, their little girl and a grown son, Edward Schneider, by a former husband of Mrs. Foche. Edmund [sic] was the idol of his mother's life and was a protector and assisted her in bearing the burdens of her unhappy marriage. But, he was attacked with pneumonia and died several weeks ago. His death was a severe blow to his poor old mother and broils with her husband, which often attracted the attention of the neighbors, became more frequent.
     They sold at a sacrifice, and their plans were laid to return to the old country. Yesterday, while Foche was down in the city making some necessary purchases for their departure, his wife took advantage of his absence and left with her effects and the little girl for parts unknown. She took with her the money received for their homestead, excepting $100, which she left for the old man, showing that she still retained a spark of sympathy for him in his lonely lot while he is shifting for himself.
     When Foche returned home yesterday evening, he did not wait for his wife's return. He seemed to take in the situation at a glance and he soon made himself heard in the neighborhood. The burden of his wail indicated that he was exercised more over the loss of the money than he was over the loss of his wife and child. He came to the city and placed the case in the hands of the officers, but doubtless ere they will get trace of the fleeing wife--she will have reached her destination, safe in another country and clime.

     The Billington divorce suit was up before Judge Muse to-day. Mrs. Mary Billington sues T. Billington for alimony. It appears, however, that the defendant obtained a divorce from the plaintiff in this case in California last fall, and this makes a very interesting case to decide. The judge has it under advisement.

     Mrs. P. J. Walker, alias P. J. Shorter, has brought suit for a divorce from her husband, B. F. Shorter, alias B. F. Walker. The parties were married in Limestone county, in 1866, and have two daughters, one seventeen and the other thirteen years of age. Mrs. Walker-Shorter alleges that her life with Walker-Shorter, of recent years, has not been one continuous round of pleasure. He has not contributed to her support, has cursed and abused her and accused her of having sustained illicit relations with other men. These constitute good grounds for a separation, she concludes, and accordingly asks for a decree, and the custody of her children.
     Laura Lewis asks for a divorce from Walter Lewis. They were married in 1886, and plaintiff always carried out her part of the contract to the best of her ability, she says, but after the honey-moon was over, there came a change. The conduct of defendant jumped from bad to worse. At time, he called her "an old cow," and other names not often heard in polite circles, and finally deserted while she was sick, remaining away a week or more. In 1889, he deserted her forever, saying that he "was done with her." On these grounds, plaintiff wants the bonds broken.

Margaret J. Dillard, vs H. C. Dillard, divorce; judgment for plaintiff granting divorce as prayed for.
Susan McDonald vs. Robert McDonald, divorce granted as prayed for.
Paralee H. Higginsbothan vs. Joseph H. Higginsbothan; divorce granted as prayed for and plaintiff restored to her maiden name, Paralee C. Nance.
Lizzie Thompson vs. W. A. Thompson; divorce granted as prayed for.

     Martha E. King vs. Thomas R. King; divorce.
     John McMahon vs. Ella McMahon; divorce.
     Nelson Graves vs. Belle Graves; divorce.
     Ella Williams vs. Cheney Williams; divorce.
     Fannie F. Kirckel vs. John H. Kirckel; divorce.

     Sophia R. Askins vs. Wm. J. Askins, divorce; degree granted as prayed for.

     Mollie Cavello vs. Annida Cavello, divorce.

     The habeas corpus case against Morris Lacey, involving the custody and care of a child, was continued until to-morrow morning.

     Hardy Earvy vs. Jennie A. Earvy, divorce; dismissed by plaintiff.
     Cardy Clifton vs. Mamie Clifton, divorce; decree as prayed for and plaintiff given the custoday of the minors, Jose and Una Clifton.

     Mollie Burrows vs. Charles Burrows, divorce.

     Hanlay Eary vs. Jenney Eary, divorce. Plaintiff asserts that he came to Texas in 1886 to better his fortune and that his wife, who is a resident of Murray county, Tenn., refused to join him here and is living with one Joe Riley, not the Riley who kept the hotel so well. Plaintiff is of the opinion that he is entitled to a divorce and doubtless the court will agree with him.

     M. E. Prine vs. A. L. Prine, divorce; divorce granted as prayed for by plaintiff; costs taxed against defendant.
     Maggie R. Harris vs. Walter A. Harris; divorce granted and costs taxed against plaintiff.

     Martha E. King vs. Thos. R. King, divorce granted as prayed for.
     Nelson Graves vs. Belle Graves; divorce granted as prayed for.

     John McMahon vs. Ella McMahon; divorce granted defendant on her cross bill; community property to be divided as per agreement filed. Costs taxed against plaintiff.

     Adeline Fuchs vs. Wm. P. Fuchs, divorce granted as prayed for; plaintiff allowed of the custody of infant child.

     The following suits were filed in the office of the district clerk to-day:
     George L. Stanley vs. Camilla E. Stanley, divorce. Parties were married in Houstoin in 1872; defendant is now a resident of Washington, D. C. They separated in September 1866, and since that time, defendant has refused to live with plaintiff as his wife.
     Virginia E. McCoy vs. C. C. McCoy, divorce. They were married in Texas in 1872, and came to Dallas in 1886. Plaintiff asserts that defendant has abused and maltreated her for years and that she was forced to separate from him three weeks ago.

     It is not often that after living together for more than a quarter of a century, a couple will fly the track and ask the courts to dissolve the bonds of matrimony. Anderson Spencer began suit for divorce this morning against his wife, Liela Spencer. They were married in Harrison county, Texas, in 1858, thirty-two years ago, and parted in April, 1889. The plaintiff alleges that in that year, his wife strayed from the paths of virtue, treated him unkindly and made life unbearable. He asks the court to shatter the bonds and to allow them to sail down life's highway in single harness.

     Jennie B. Throop was granted a divorce to-day from Thomas B. Throop.

     Thos. J. Smith vs. Emma Smith; divorce granted as [prayed] for.

     To-day a very dirty washing of family linen is in progress in Judge Burke's court. Lena Sachette sues Moses Sachette for a divorce, division of property and the custody of the children. the parties are Polish Jews and are engaged in merchandising on Elm street. The plaintiff charges her husband with all the meanness that a man is capable of doing. Cruel treatment, drunkenness, adultery, using violent and abusive language, beating and cutting his spouse and a few other little wanton outbreaks are put down to his credit.
     Judge Burke will call the criminal docket and assign the cases, to-morrow.

     In the case of Lena Sackett vs. Moses Sackett, suit for divorce, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, granting her divorce and also the property now in her possession. Sackett was allowed as his share, the property now in his hands. The parties are Polanders and the proprietors of small stores on Elm street.

     Helen A. Rose sues for a divorce from J. A. Rose. The parties were married in Dallas in December last. Defendant is a non-resident now and is worth $20,000. Plaintiff alleges that he treated her cruelly, and one occasion, hurled three bottles of whisky at her head.

     Nettie Allen was granted a divorce from Anthony Allen and P. J. Puckette from P. W. Puckette.

     John Johnson, who lives in a tent west of the Central railroad near the branch in the southeastern portion of the city, was arrested last night for being drunk and disorderly. His wife's statement to the officers is to the effect that he came home drunk and raised a row because supper was not waiting for him. He drove her from the house and waved a gun over his head. Johnson is the same party who, a few night's ago, it was stated, fired at a negro who attempted to assault his wife. His side of the story is that the attempt was repeated last night and when he went out to shoot the intruder, the latter grappled with him and the gun was accidentally discharged.
     Johnson is a Swede. His case will be called for trial city court Wednesday morning.

     Cole Brown vs. Emma Brown; divorce.

     J. C. Calhain, a divorce lawyer noted by reason of the number of divorce cases he secures, was arrested, charged with interfering with the private property of one Mrs. L. Hunter, and for aggravated assault and battery on Mrs. Hunter. The aggravated assault and battery case was transferred for jurisdiction and the charge of interfering with private property was continued. Mr. Calhain says he was acting in the capacity of a peacemaker between Mrs. Hunter and her tenant, whose name is Mrs. Cohn.

     Fanny R. Nuckalls vs. Frank M. Nuckalls; divorce. The parties were married at Crawfordsville, Ind., in September, 1879, and lived together about nine years. Plaintiff narrates a terrible story of abuse at the hands of her husband who drank, gambled and squandered his money and neglected to provide for her wants. He abuse her, beat her, called her vile names, and, at last, drove her from home. She asks for the custody of Frank, her eight-year-old son, and that the bonds of matrimony be dissolved by the court. Nuckalls is a tough citizen if he is as cruel and as worthless as his wife paints him. The plaintiff is a music teacher.

     Lizzie Stukey, vs. John Stukey, divorce. The parties were married in Dallas county, Tex., October 22, 1888. Cruel and abusive treatment is alleged on the part of the plaintiff.

     J. M. Payne, father of Lester Payne, and the husband of the old lady charged with abducting the baby Eva, arrived in the city from San Bernardino, Cal., last night.
     Payne Pere, his wife, Lester Payne and the baby, it is alleged, are in quarters on the northeast corner of Akard street and Patterson avenue. Lester Payne, the young reprobate who has cause his poor wife so much suffering, has nothing to say more than he is tired of his wife, and judging from his actions, he is very willing to "shake her"--to use a vernacularism of the wild and woolly west.
     To-day, Colonel Jerome B. Kearby, attorney for the Paynes, made application for a writ of habeas corpus to Judge Burke, alleging that Mrs. J. M. Payne and Lester Payne are retrained of their liberty by the officers of the county of Dallas, State of Texas, without cause, etc., and asking for a hearing. Judge Burke granted the writ, making it returnable on Wednesday, July 16, at 10 o'clock a. m.
     Col. D. A. Williams is representing the state in the matter.
     Baby Payne, where is she? It is an undeniable fact that the baby was taken to the St. James Hotel Thursday night by Lester Payne, and it is conceded that the child was removed from the hotel at an early hour yesterday morning. It is surmised that she is with the Paynes in their present quarters, although no one has been found who has laid eyes on the kid since it was taken away from the St. James.
     Mr. Estees and his sister, Mrs. Lester Payne, have made no new moves toward securing possession of the little girl. It will be safe to wager a dollar against a dime, however, that if they do not keep their eyes open, Baby Payne will be spirited away and be hundreds of miles from Dallas enroute to California, before the prisoners secure their release by the habeas-corpus-pocus next Wednesday.
     The sympathy of the public is naturally with the mother, and the consensus of opinion is that she is entitled to the babe and should be awarded the custody of the already-famous Baby Payne.

     J. A. Law vs. Alberta C. Law; divorce. The parties were married in the year 1875, in Pike county, Alabama, and came to Ogden, Taylor county, Texas, where defendant committed adultery with Dr. J. P. Haynes and other parties. Plaintiff condoned this offense and moved his family to Wolfe City, where defendant, again, committed adultery with divers persons, whereupon, in 1887, plaintiff abandoned her. He asks for a dissolution of the marriage bonds and the custody of the two children born of the marriage, Flora W., aged 12 years and John A., a lad of 9 years.

     Amandy Seawell vs. James H. Seawell; divorce. The parties were married at Smithville, Tenn., in the year 1876, and lived together until May 20, 1890. Plaintiff is the mother of four children by plaintiff. Thirteen years after the marriage, plaintiff alleges that defendant, without cause, began a systematic course of cruel treatment towards her. At times, he would curse and vilify her in the presence of her children and others, call her a prostitute and threaten her with a knife. Finally, he deserted her, leaving his family without means of support. She has earned a living for herself and the children since the defendant abandoned his family by keeping boarders. On several occasions, Seawell has visited her residence and threatened to break up her business, steal away the children and reduce the wife of his bosom to want. He has succeeded, she says, in driving away several of her boarders, and being fearful that he will continue to annoy, she asks for an injunction restraining him from interfering in any way with her and for a decree of divorce and the custody of the children.

     Mary E. Martin vs. W. M. Martin; divorce. the parties to the suit were married in Dallas county in 1885 and lived together until 1886, when defendant abandoned plaintiff and has never returned to her. There are no children or community property involved.

     The charge against W. S. C. Moore, for aggravated assault and battery on his wife was transferred.

     Jeff Signor charged with assaulting his wife, was transferred to the tender mercies of the county court.

     C. W. Fitzgerald, an old man, a carpenter by trade, whose home is at 1609 Commerce street, was incarcerated in the city jail this morning under the charge of theft. Several days ago, Fitzgerald was arrested under a warrant obtained by Sam Scott, a second-hand goods dealer, charging him with stealing a stove. He gave bail for his appearance under this charge and was enjoying his liberty, when Mr. J. F. Berry obtained a warrant to search his house and found therein certain articles of household goods which were stolen some time ago. Upon the strength of this evidence, Fitzgerald is again in durance vile. In addition to this trouble, he is in the throes of domestic unhappiness and his wife, having failed once, is making another effort to obtain a divorce. He charges her with being the influence to bring upon him other troubles. The couple have been man and wife many years. They raised a family of children, but the household is divided, the boys, it is said, siding with their mother and the grown daughter, with her father. She followed him to the jail this morning, plead with the officers for his release, and she did not leave until she saw her efforts were in vain. The old man tried to comfort her, and instead of the station-keeper taking charge of his pocket valuables, they were given to the daughter to keep until the father is again at liberty.

     Laura B. Jackson vs. Alonzo Jackson; divorce.
     Willie Williams vs. J. H. Williams; divorce.

     Jake Fischel, who shot Henry Wasserman, an Elm street business man last winter, is in trouble again, or rather, he was in trouble. Jake's family troubles have been pretty thoroughly penetrated by the city press. His wife, before the shooting, sued Jake for a divorce, alleging that he beat her, that he had six wives and married them all for the purpose of obtaining their wealth. Jake was given two years by a jury for shooting at Wasserman, but the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case, and he is now out on bond. Saturday, Mrs. Fischel had him arrested for threatening "to take her life if she did not tell the truth," but the case was dismissed by Justice Brown. To-day, Jake was "pulled again," and had another trial, and again, he came clear. Mrs. Fischel testified that he had never beaten her, but she was fearful that he would beat her.

     Ruth Ann Dean vs. Alvin M. Dean; divorce.
     Herbert King vs. Annie King; divorce.

     W. I. Green, to-day, filed a suit for divorce against his wife, Nancy. According to the plaintiff's petition, he married Nancy in the city of Dallas in 1887, and on June 20, 1890, he separated from her. Green says his wife is unchaste and a drunkard and he wants the marriage bonds heretofore contracted, to be dissolved at the earliest convenience of the court.

     To the Sheriff or any Constable of Dallas County--Greeting:
You are hereby commanded, That making publication of this citation in some newspaper, published in the County of Dallas, for four consecutive weeks, previous to the return day hereof, you summon Richard Tiller, whose residence is unknown, to be and appear before the District Court, to be holden in and for the County of Dallas at the court house thereof, in the city of Dallas, on the 2nd Monday in May next, then and there to answer to the petition of Bettie Tiller, filed in said Court on the 26th day of November, 1889, against the said Richard Tiller, and alleging, in substance, as follows, to-wit:
     Plaintiff states that she and the defendant were married in Dallas county, Texas, on the ____ day of January, 1886, and that they lived together as man and wife in said county and state until about the ___ day of June,1888, when said defendant abandoned plaintiff, but before the said abandonment said defendant failed to provide in any manner whatever for the plaintiff, and that he was continually violating the laws of the state, and deprived this plaintiff of all her hard earnings to pay fines for his misconduct, etc., and that he beat her unmercifully on divers occasions, and finally left her without even the necessaries of life. Wherefore plaintiff brings this suit and prays that said defendant be cited to answer herein, and that upon final hearing, tha tthe bonds of matrimony heretofore existing be forever dissolved, that she be declared a feme sole, and for all cost of suit, and petitioner will every pray.
     Herein fail not, but have you then and there before said court, this writ, with your return thereon, showing how you have executed the same.
     Witness, J. H. Stewart, Clerk of the District Court of Dallas county, Texas.
     Given under my hand and the seal of said Court at office in the City of Dallas, this, the 15th day of March, A. D., 1890.
J. H. STEWART,
Clerk D. C., of Dallas county, Texas.
By F. R. Foote, Deputy.

     Under the caption, "Licensed to Wed," in the TIMES-HERALD of Tuesday, appeared the following:
     "A. J. Beason and Josephine Farling."
     Last night, a gentleman remarked to a TIMES-HERALD reporter, "There is an item there," pointing to the names of the candidates for domestic felicity upon the matrimonial sea. Inquiry developed the fact that the wedding of Mr. Beason and Miss Farling was to have been solemnized on Tuesday evening and the preliminaries had all been arranged, the minister selected to tie the knot, the chosen friends invited to witness the ceremony and the wedding feast spread.
     At her home in bridal array, surrounded by maids in waiting and admiring friends, at the hour appointed, the bride prepared to take upon herself the obligations of wifehood.
     Hamlet with Hamlet omitted is not a drawing card; and a wedding without a bridegroom is a failure. The groom did not show up, but sent work that he had lost his license, issued by County Clerk Bev. Scott, and, of course, would not think of marrying without it.
     The party broke up and it is rumored that the young lady, mortified beyond description, swallowed a large dose of poison with suicidal intent, but prompt medical attendance saved her life.
     The marriage license was found Wednesday by a friend of the young man in the case and returned to its owner. It is understood, however, that he has experienced a change of heart, and at the last moment, his mind received a rude shock to the effect that he did not love the girl well enough to make her his wife.

     The next case called was that against J. O. Davis, the young lawyer from Cleburne, who was charged with "hanging around" the residence of his wife; he was also charged with displaying a pistol and being a suspicious character.
     Attorney Moore represented the prisoner and Captain Wozencraft prosecuted. The evidence went to show that Davis and his wife separated two months ago; that she went away on a visit to her friends in Colorado; that she returned and started to keep a boarding house in this city; that her husband suspected that she was unfaithful to her marriage vows and went to her home to kill the man who frequented the place.
     He was arrested on that charge and released on bond.
     After hearing all the evidence, Judge Brown charged the jury to this effect: "That a man had a right to visit his wife if she did not have a divorce from him; that a man could carry a pistol in defense of his honor; that he could go to the home of the woman who was his wife and the fact that even there was not sufficient cause to prove that her life was in danger." The judge made a very elaborate charge and the jury, after being out thirty minutes, returned a verdict of "not guilty."
     Davis was warmly congratulated by his friends and the members of the bar who were present on the outcome.

     J. O. Davis, who has figured extensively of late in the columns of the city press in connection with troubles of a domestic nature, as reported in these columns, was vindicated yesterday by a jury in the city court and also on another charge in the justice court of John Henry Brown.
     To-day, he filed papers in a divorce suit against his wife in the office of the district clerk of the Fourteenth and Forty-fourth judicial district courts, on the ground that she had been untrue to her marriage vows, and also guilty of other indiscretions. Attorney Moore represents Mr. Davis, and it is understood that the latter has all the evidence necessary to make his fight.

     This morning at the residence of Mr. G. D. Smith, 408 Ervay street, his charming sister, Miss Ellen, and Mr. John Hardy were united in marriage by Eld. J. H. Rosecrans of the Christian Church. The relatives and intimate friends only were present to witness the ceremony. A reception followed, where congratulations and fond farewells were intermingled.
     Mrs. Hardy is the sister of H. H., Ed. C. and G. D. Smith, well-known and popular gentlemen, members of an old Dallas family, and is a lady who has ever enjoyed the esteem of a large circle of friends, being a prominent figure in the social and religious circles of her native city. Mr. Hardy is well-known in Dallas as an enterprising and high-minded young gentleman.
     Farewells over, the young couple were driven to the Santa Fe depot and embarked on the outgoing train for New York city. On Saturday, they sail on one of the ocean palaces for London, England, their future home. Mr. Hardy has accepted an important mercantile position in that city and will doubtless reside there for many years.
     There are four boys and two girls in the family and Mrs. Hardy breaks the home circle, as they have heretofore always lived in the same state, not an hour's ride from each other.

     Paul Clifton vs. Iola Clifton, divorce.
     Bettie Brice vs. R. J. Brice, divorce.

     A suit for divorce was begun yesterday in the district court by Mrs. Martha S. Sphar against Street Commissioner John S. Sphar, her husband. The petition alleges that they were married in 1878, and that until April of the present year, they lived together. That by reason of her husband's continued excesses, cruelties and outrages, she was compelled to leave him. She also charges that he has been unfaithful to his marriage vows. On February 1 last, so she avers, she was ill and asked him to go for a doctor and buy her some medicine, and his reply was that he would not buy her anything except a coffin. She prays for a writ of injunction restraining him from disturbing her in the use of her household furniture, and asked that he be prohibited from coming about her premises. She also asks that he be required to return into court a complete inventory of all their community property, and that she have a decree of divorce and alimony for $60 per month. The injunction prayed for was directed to be issued by Judge Burke.

     Genial Dick Madden, agent in Texas for the St. Louis Pressed Brick Company, has fooled his friends completely this time. He took his departure from Dallas several weeks ago northward, "for his health." Last evening, Mr. and Mrs.. R. J. Madden arrived in the city, and to-day, Dick is receiving the congratulations of his friends. Mrs. Madden is a Cincinnati girl, a beautiful and accomplished little woman, and Dick is to be congratulated on his good fortune.

     Sara L. Rodaz vs. Frank A. Rodaz, divorce. Parties were married in Brackettville, Tex., in 1873. Plaintiff alleges cause of petition for the dissolution of the marriage bonds to be ill treatment, abuse and failure to provide for herself and four children for the past five years. Plaintiff also prays for the custody of Tillie, aged 16; Frank, aged 15; Catherine, aged 12, and Willie, aged 9 years, the fruits of their marriage.

     District court, Dallas county:
     S. A. Dunn vs. Martha J. Dunn; divorce. Parties were married at Montgomery City, Mo., October 31, 1876, and lived together until June 13, 1887, it all the time being the object of plaintiff to make defendant comfortable and happy, who disregarding her married vow, treated defendant shamefully and outrageously until June 13, 1887, when she deserted plaintiff and is now residing in St. Louis, refusing to live with him or share his support, in consideration of which, petitioner prays for a dissolution of the marriage bonds. No children are mentioned.

     J. B. Taylor [Payton?] was arraigned under the charge of aggravated assault and battery and the charge was transferred to the county court. Officer Garrison, who arrested Payton, stated to a TIMES-HERALD reporter that it was about 1 o'clock this morning when he was called to the corner of Ross avenue and Griffin street to arrest Payton, who, it was stated, was beating his wife. The affair drew quite a crowd before Payton was placed under arrest.

     Lizzie M. Hatfield vs. Milton J. Hatfield, divorce. Parties were married in Dayton, O., April 27, 1864, and lived happily together until Jan. 4, 1886, when defendant, without any provocation or excuse, deserted her; since which time, he has made no manifesto of his intention of renewing his relationship with plaintiff, and is now residing in Crawford county, Pa., therefore, plaintiff prays for a dissolution of the marriage bonds.

     Mrs. M. J. Cox vs. J. H. Cox, divorce. Parties were married in December, 1873, in Falls county, Texas, and for two years afterwards, lived happily together, after which time, plaintiff alleges that defendant began to show a decided preference for other women, and four years after their marriage, defendant sold out everything they jointly possessed and left plaintiff and her three children [in] destitute circumstances, and was gone five months, when he returned and plaintiff forgave him and lived with him again until he ran off with another woman and went to Cleburne, Tex., where they lived at a hotel as man and wife, but he again returned to plaintiff and was forgiven and shortly afterwards moved to Dallas county and continued to lived together until September 1, 1890, when defendant, again, forsook her bed and brought a lewd woman to the hotel they were keeping; that on the following morning, he stated that he would leave plaintiff for good; that defendant's continued cruel treatment has become unbearable, therefore, she prays the court to dissolve the marriage bonds, and to grant plaintiff the custody of their community property, valued at $450 or $500; also, the custody and education of Belle Zora, age 13; Ada, age 10 and Florence, age 4, the issue of said marriage.
     M. M. C. Jones vs. A. C. Jones, divorce. Parties were married in the Chickasaw Nation in July, 1879, afterward moving to the state of Texas, where they resided as man and wife until defendant began a series of cruel, outrageous and abusive treatment in 1887 and 1888, which made life with him unbearable; that plaintiff had, at all times, endeavored to make defendant a good and affectionate husband; therefore prays that the marriage vow be dissolved.

     Mr. William C. Keller and bride, formerly Miss Cornelia Lindsay of Siloam Springs, Ark., returned home yesterday.

     Theodora[?] M. Gray vs. James H. Gray, divorce. Parties were married in October, 1887, in this city. Plaintiff avers that she was a good and dutiful wife to defendant, but found life no longer bearable with him about the 16th of March, 1890, on account of excessive cruelty and outrages to her. That on said occasion, defendant was guilty of the following conduct: Beating her on the head and slapping her unmercifully, knowing that she was in a delicate condition. That on divers occasions previous to this, defendant had habitually and constantly neglected her and her child even in sickness, leaving them dependent upon the charity of neighbors; therefore, she prays the court for a dissolution of the marriage bonds and the custody of the child--the fruits of said marriage.
     Hank Adams vs. Bessie Adams, divorce. Parties were married in Dallas, May, 1889. That a short time afterwards, defendant left him without provocation or without his knowledge of her intention and went to Hot Springs, Ark., and did for several months live in adultery with one Hinkson. Therefore, plaintiff prays for a dissolution of the marriage vow.

     Lou Foster vs. Monroe Foster; divorce.

     Lou Foster was granted a divorce from Monroe Foster yesterday by the Fourteenth judicial district court.

     Cards are out announcing the marriage of Dr. H. P. Ruddell of Terrell to Miss Kate Graham of this city on Wednesday evening, September 17, at 7 o'clock, at her father's residence, corner Washington and Thomas avenues.

     District court Dallas county:
     Mittie Webb vs. Jack Webb; divorce. Parties were married in Robertson county, Texas, Dec. 24, 1884, and notwithstanding that plaintiff made defendant a good and dutiful wife, as the petition alleges, he left her in the summer of 1885 with the intention to abandon her; that since that time, he has remained away from her, at no time contributing toward her support, and she, therefore, prays for her marriage bonds to be dissolved on the ground of desertion.

     In Judge Burke's court to-day, Edith McElroy was granted a divorce from W. J. McElroy and granted permission to take upon herself her maiden name.

     Ellen Williams vs. Cheney Williams, divorce as prayed for, costs taxed against plaintiff. The title to the lot of land set out and described in plaintiff's petitions in decreed in plaintiff (as given)

     The file docket of the clerk of the district court will show that an average of two divorces are filed daily.
     This morning, Josie Albert filed a suit for divorce against W. Albert, and if her allegations are taken, she has traveled over a rocky road during her married life. The parties were married in California, July 1886, and came to Dallas in 1889. Mrs. Albert alleges that to gratify his pugilistic propensities, her husband frequently beat her black and blue during their residence in California and did not desist after they located in the Lone Star. She left him and says that ever since, she has lived in constant fear of assassination. There is no property and no children, and all that she asks is a decree of divorce.
     The second suit instituted as that of an aggrieved husband. Close readers, in scanning the court columns, will notice that the aggrieved husband is a rarity. The proportion is about twenty to one. James Floyd is anxious to obtain a decree from the court dissolving the matrimonial bonds which exist between himself and his wife, Josie. On December 5, 1885, the [couple was] married in Dallas county. [T]he bride deserted the bed and board of James, and for more than three years, they have been apart. James alleges many naughty things against Josie, one of which is that she, a year or more after their separation, gave birth to a child, which, under the circumstances, was hardly the proper caper for a married woman residing apart from her legal and lawfully wedded lord and master.

     Lizzie Stuckey vs. John Stuckey; divorce granted as prayed for and costs taxed against the plaintiff.

     Mrs. Geraldine Thomas began suit for divorce against Isaac Thomas to-day. Mrs. Thomas tells the old, old story in her simple narrative, or petition filed in the office of the district clerk. She married her husband in Dallas in 1886, and in 1889, he began to grow cold and distant toward her. In 1890, along in June, his indifference had reached the freezing point. Mrs. Thomas alleges that she investigated the icebergian chilliness of her liege lord and found that he was bestowing all the warmth of his affectionate nature upon another woman, and then she abandoned him to his fate. She asks for a decree, and that her maiden name, Geraldine Williams, be restored to her by the court.

     W. H. Darnell vs. Ida Darnell, divorce granted as prayed for.

     James Floyd, a sable son of Ham, was granted a divorce from his wife, Josie Floyd, this morning in Judge Burke's court.
     James fell a victim to the charms of the gentle Josie some five years ago. Before he had won her for his bride, she lived with her father, whose dwelling was situated in the regions of Five Mile creek, which stream empties its waters into the Trinity, about eight miles south of Dallas. It was here he wooed and won her for his bride. After a galloping courtship, they were made one, but the honeymoon's happy days had hardly took their flight when Josie turned her back upon the little home he built for her. He waited and watched every cloud of dust that came floating down the road, but he strained his eyes in vain. But, Josie had stirred up her last cloud of dust along that road. By and by, he closed his cabin door and betook himself to the home of his mother, who spanked him in his childhood. His mother advised him to get a divorce from the faithless Josie. He is now as single as when he roamed the wild wood in his happy childhood days.

     Mollie Deveny vs. Rollin Deviney; divorce granted to plaintiff as prayed for, and costs taxed against plaintiff.
     James Floyd vs. Josie Floyd; plaintiff has leave to amend and divorce granted to plaintiff as prayed for and hte care and custody of minor child accorded to plaintiff, costs taxed against plaintiff.

     Last evening's Texas & Pacific train from the east brought as passengers to this city, Mrs. Regina Hanson and her son-in-law, both of New Orleans. The lady formerly resided in Dallas and was highly esteemed by all who knew her. To an old friend, she at once made known her mission to Dallas at this time: A few months ago, her daughter, Miss Regina, a plump and prepossessing maiden, departed from her home in company with her lover, John J. Henderson. They located at Marshall, where Henderson endeavored to obtain employment. Miss Regina wrote to her mother that she was married to Henderson in that city, the Catholic priest officiating and a gentleman named "Mack," acting as witness. Mrs. Hanson, to satisfy existing doubts in her own mind, wrote to the priest and Mack, and in due time, her letters were answered. The clergyman denied that he had married the couple and Mack wrote that they were strangers to him. Henderson and the girl came to Dallas, September 1, and rented a house from H. C. Stevenson. Henderson failed to find employment in the city, and a few days ago, the couple went to Duncanville, on the Santa Fe railroad. This much, Mrs. Hanson ascertained this morning, and accompanied by her son-in-law, the anxious mother departed for that village this afternoon. If the couple are not man and wife, there will be a lively scene enacted at Duncanville this evening.

     Officer Wood Ramsey and Dick Beard were called to the cotton mills last evening to investigate a row alleged to have taken place in that neighborhood, in which pistols were drawn and several shots fired. The facts in the case are as follows: Jim Taylor married a young lady in Tennessee a few years ago, whose parents reside in Dallas. Their married life was a stormy one and separation followed. Mrs. Taylor came to Dallas and secured a divorce from her liege lord and erstwhile master. Taylor followed a few months ago and has been working in the cotton mill. Last night, accompanied by his brother, Roy, he visited the residence of this divorced wife, now Mrs. Cross, and requested the lady to kiss him, remarking that her mother had been the cause of the trouble between them. She, with righteous indignation, refused to comply with his request, and he seized their child, which was awarded to the mother by the court, and said he would take it. A brother of the woman, who happened to be present, picked up a chair and threatened to brain Taylor if he did not leave the premises. The brothers ran out of the house, leaving the child behind them. Upon reaching the street, the brothers drew their guns and opened fire on the woman's brother and he returned the compliment. One of the shots fired by the Taylors struck Miss Cross, a sister of the young man, in the body, causing a painful wound. The bullet which was fired from a 38-calibre Smith and Wesson, was extracted by a surgeon and no evil results are feared. The Taylors escaped across the river before the police arrived and have successfully eluded their pursuers thus far.

     The TIMES-HERALD yesterday noted the return of Mrs. Regina Hansen and her son-in-law, A. J. Rutledge, from Duncanville, where they made an unsuccessful search for a runaway daughter and her lover, John J. Henderson, whose escapades were given in detail in these columns Wednesday afternoon.
     Late last evening, the couple were located at a residence in East Dallas, near the fair grounds, by Deputy Sheriff Andy Moore and Mr. Rutledge, who had the assistance of several members of the Dallas police force. Henderson informed Mrs. Hansen and Rutledge that he and Miss Regina were united in marriage before they departed from New Orleans, but it was decided another ceremony would not be out of place. A license was secured from one of Bev Scott's handsome and accommodating deputies and his honor, Justice Braswell, tied the knot. Congratulations followed, then the party dispersed. Mr. and Mrs. Henderson will make their home in this city, while Mrs. Hansen and Mr. Rutledge will return to New Orleans to-day. Henderson is the son of wealthy parents, who threatened to disinherit him if he married the girl. "All's well that ends well."

     Louisa Lumley vs. Thomas Lumley for divorce.
     Mary Ann Dyer vs. C. T. Dyer for divorce.

     Mr. and Mrs. J. Roll Johnson returned from San Antonio last evening. J. Roll slipped away a few days ago and surprised his friends by returning with a bride.

     Cassie Stovall vs. William V. Stovall, judgment for divorce as prayed for, and plaintiff restored to her maiden name of Kidwell.

     Mrs. Cassie Stovall was granted a divorce in Judge Tucker's court from her husband, Wm. Stovall.
     She lived with William as long as she possibly could, in fact, as long as it was safe. She said there were times when William was a model husband, but there were other moments, which were greatly in the majority, when he was anything but a model husband.
     William is a rollicking kind of a chap and would imbibe too much every time he went to town. When he came home drunk, he was always spoiling for a fight, and would pick one out of her whether she was in a fighting mood, or not. The most objectionable feature about Bill's fighting was that he would not fight fair. He would snatch up the first object in his reach and assault her with it. He finally got to getting down the shotgun and drawing a bead on her. She did not relish this a bit and sought fields anew before that old gun went off with her in front of it.
     No temperate minded man could censure her for shaking Bill. If she wishes to wed another, no one can blame her for that. If she wished to procure a divorce before she weds the other fellow, no one can blame her for that. And, if she hires a private detective to discover if her husband to be is a dangerous man, no one can blame her for that.
     She was granted a divorce and restored to her maiden name.

     Mary L. Miller sues for a divorce from her husband, Louis L. Miller, who she claims is altogether unworthy of a wife. They were made one in Tarrant county three years ago, and on that day, looked forward for much happiness, but to her dismay, she soon discovered that the future and her husband had a very different material laid by for her. When she promised Louis to be his, she thought him to the personification of goodness, but at this time, her views are very different from those of her happy girlhood days. After they were married, Louis was very kind for a time, but soon changed his tactics, which tactics she did not relish in the least. Her spouse would go to town, tank up and come home ripe and ready for a free fight. As she was not of a fighting disposition, Louis had to satisfy himself with cursing her out; using the strongest terms his memory and imagination could produce. He would use the vilest epithets that could be picked up in that neighborhood. He would accuse her of being unfaithful, using the most obscene language imaginable to express himself. She not only wants to be free, but craves her maiden name. She considers his to be contaminating to say the least. She does not even ask the Lord to have mercy on his soul.
     Henry N. Wilcox also desires to be forever delivered from his wife, Sarah E. Wilcox. He is positively tired of Sarah---so tired, that he petitions the court to assist him in getting entirely rid of her. He does not say whether he wishes to wed again or not, nor whom he wishes to wed. That face he locks in his bosom for the present, but is perfectly willing for the world to know that he wishes to shake Sarah.

     Miss Margaret M. Charles, third daughter of the late Robert Charles, was married last Thursday at 4:30 p. m., at her home in Webster Groves, to Mr. Henry B. Kane, of Dallas, Tex., the ceremony being performed by Rev. J. W. Sutherland, assisted by Rev. A. J. Kane, the aged father of the groom. -- Globe-Democrat.

     D. E. Davis has brought suit for divorce against S. C. Davis.
     In his office yesterday, Justice John Henry Brown married G. S. Brierton to Miss Bettie Leach of Palo Pinto county and W. L. Barnes and Miss Mamie Flapagan [Flanagan?] of Calvert.

     P. H. Travers sues for a divorce from his wife, Mary Travers. Mary did not prove to be near the woman he thought she was when he used to squander his cash for dashing neckties to lure her into the matrimonial trap. When Mary was a blushing damsel, he thought her uncommonly fair to look upon and chose her from among all the good-looking girls who dwelt in his neighborhood. Pete considered it the most unfortunate selection of his life. He has worn many misfits in shoes, pantaloons, coats, vests and in underware, also, but Mary, he considers, beyond the remotest hint of a doubt, the worst misfit he ever got hold of. The choosing of Mary has cost him more healthy signs than all other thorns of his life combined. In hopes once more of a clear sky, he takes the legal step that will as emphatically separate them as if they had never been born. Whether the divinity that shapes our ends holds the act against him, or not, he is going to sever forever, world with end or corner the matrimonial bonds that girds him to the despised Mary.
     It probably hurts Pete to think of other girls who often crossed his path in the days of his youth that are making first-class all-around wives. He has probably often been in such misery that he would have given ten years or more of his life if he or May one had been born in some other neighborhood. He was probably proud of the achievement of cutting all the other boys out in those halcyon and promising days of his courtship. But, like many others he learned, as time introduced new phases in Mary's character, he learned to curse his boyish flame as only a henpecked husband can. Pete has undoubtedly often cussed dashing neckties that he sported on Sunday afternoons when he wooed Mary. It may also be that Pete has, during his matrimonial career, wished his father-in-law in that land of torrid fame for giving him Mary. Whatever Pete's wishes have been while treading his rocky matrimonial road, there is not the least about his present ones which are to rid himself of Mary, now and throughout eternity.

     Fanny E. Pryor was granted a divorce from her husband, A. G. Pryor. When Albert led Fanny from the altar, she was as happy a bride as any girl could be. But, Albert, by his cruelty, drove all love for him from her fluttering heart. She now acknowledges to the world that her heart flutters for Albert no more. If Albert had treated her kindly, she would have clung to him with a tenacious cling, but his cruelty caused her to turn her back upon Albert and his home. She was given the custody of Claude, their only and oldest child.

     Another man has grown weary of his wife. This time, it is J. M. Hayden who prays the court to liberate him from his uncongenial matrimonial bonds. Mattie Hayden, his wife, possesses a peculiarity of disposition which renders it impossible for him to linger any longer by her side to care for and protect her. If she is not able to take care of herself, he is willing for her to get any one she wishes to do it for her, for he is positively tired of the job and throws up his position for any one who aspires to it. Jim does not state in his petition whether he has some other fair one in his eye or not, for whom he would be willing to labor and protect from any stray harm that should chance upon her.

     Lou Waters files a petition for a divorce from her husband, John Waters. Mrs. Waters states in her petition it was a sad day for her when she let John Waters whisper his words of false love in her unexperienced ear. Lou considers herself about the worst deceived woman in this neck of the creek. When she married John, she thought him to be all that was good and noble, but later on, she discovered that he had about as little of the good and noble in his composition as the hardest character in the country.
     The honeymoon had scarcely sought the spot where the woodbine twineth when John began a course of cruel treatment that blighted all of her happy hopes. He would slap and kick her without the least provocation. From what Lou says, he must have been a hard kicker and proud of his talent in that direction.
     But slapping and kicking were not the worst features of John's conduct by considerable. Lou had a younger sister who used to stay with her and John a great deal. Her sister is named Sallie. John became enamored with Sallie and repeatedly offered the highest insults, and with each rebuff became more determined to secure his end. He even offered Sallie $5 in hopes of realizing his evil purpose. He even went so far as to try to secure his purpose by force, but still was foiled. Sallie reported the insults to Lou, which turned her love for him to loathing. She would no longer sleep in the room with him.
     Lou also sues for the family sewing machine and other household goods, and stands pat on the statement that John is a brute.

     Mr. C. Arnold and Miss M. Arnold, a very young couple, were married by Judge Bower in the county clerk's office to-day. They are just from Arkansas and it is thought that if their mamas and papas know they are out, they do not know where they are at. It is also thought that the young couple are rather glad that their mamas and papas do not know where they are at.

     Col. K. J. Kivlen, alderman from the Fifth ward, water commissioner and head of the Dallas cooperage works, departed for Chicago yesterday. The gallant city father has met his fate. He has surrendered his heart to the keeping of a fair Chicagoan, and on his return, will register "Mr. and Mrs. K. J. Kivlen." The following is self-explanatory:
     "You are respectfully invited to attend the marriage ceremony of Mrs. M. C. Ryan of Chicago, Ill., to J. J. Kivlen of Dallas, Texas, Tuesday evening, Nov. 18, 1890, St. Patrick's church, Chicago, Ill. Reception 93 Wisconsin street, Chicago."
     The TIMES-HERALD, speaking for the many friends of the groom, extends congratulations in advance, and welcomes Mrs. Kivlen to the metropolis, her future home.

     In the fourteenth judicial district court, Judge Burke, presiding, J. A. Law, this morning, procured a bill of divorcement from Alberta Law, upon the ground of desertion. The custody of their little daughter, the only child, was bestowed upon the plaintiff.

     Fifteen years ago, Alvin M. Dean abandoned his wife and children. The latter, with one exception, were of tender years. They had lived happily together. In a letter to his wife, Dean stated "that he would care for himself in future, that she could hustle for herself and the children root for it." Yesterday, the lady was granted a divorce by Judge Tucker. The evidence elicited shows that the boys cared for their mother after the old man pulled his freight; that the eldest daughter, a music teacher, contributed to the support of the family; that for three years, Mrs. Dean was a helpless invalid and her liege lord never contributed a dollar to her support, or sent her a message of love. Mrs. Dean is now at Waco, the guest of her daughter. Dean, who travels about the country selling Smith's Chill Tonic, also makes his headquarters at Waco.

     Deputy Sheriff Darby, to-day, served a citation on Lula Bussell, whose husband, Esufen Bussell, is suing for a divorce in the Tarrant county court. The defendant in the suit is only 14 years old. The parties are Arabian.

     Mattie Corbello was granted a divorce from her husband, Armida Corbello, and the custody of her four-year-old son. The defendant was charged with brutal treatment.

     Florence Godfrey sues for a divorce from her husband, Wm. Godfrey.

    Deputy United States Marshal R. L. Yokum, of this city, will lead Miss Inez Coppins of Baird, Texas, to the altar on December 10th, for which handsome cards have been issued.

     Smith D. Wilbur sues for a divorce from his wife, Addie Wilbur, on the grounds of cruel treatment.

     Mollie Walker filed a suit to-day for a divorce from her husband, E. H. Walker. Cruel treatment is alleged.

     Luella Kelsch files suit against her husband, Chris C. Kelsch, for a divorce. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant pursued such a course of cruel treatment toward her, that living with him happily, or even in safety, was rendered impossible.

     James Storrie sues for a divorce from his wife, Mollie S. Storrie.

     Julia Boyd filed suit to-day against her husband, W. J. Boyd, for divorce.

     Fritz A. Foss vs. Lucy Foss; Judge Burke granted Fitz a divorce and taxed the costs against him.

     J. M. Helmstetter, who is now in the Dallas county jail under sentence of five years for bigamy, will have to undergo the punishment assessed, and if ever a man deserved punishment for a crime against women, he comes under that head. Helmstetter is a carpenter by trade, and in 1873 or 1874, he met the woman in Dallas, who afterward became his wife to all intents and purposes. She bore him four children, all of whom are living. Three or four year ago, Helmstetter and his family moved to Kansas. They resided in Kansas for awhile and afterwards changed their place of residence to Nebraska. Eighteen months ago, Helmstetter returned to Dallas alone. He obtained work at his trade and began to circulate around in the social circles in which me moved as a single man. A year or more ago, he courted and won the heart and hand of the pretty daughter of a well-known blacksmith. They were married and began house-keeping.
     One day in last December, Mrs. Helmstetter No. 1 and her four children appeared on the scene. The newcomer was apprised of the true condition of affairs and had Helmstetter arrested on charge of bigamy. At the examining trial, he swore that he met No. 1 in a negro assignation house; that he lived with her for years without going to the trouble of having a ceremony performed as required by law, and admitted that he was the father of her children. He was held for trial, the grand jury indicted him and in July last, a jury of his superiors found him guilty as charge and assessed his punishment at five years in the penitentiary. An appeal was taken and the finding of the lower court is approved. No record of the marriage could be found, the records of the county clerk failed to show that a license had been issued and wife No. 1 had forgotten the name of the pastor who married her. Nevertheless, the court of appeals hold that she was the lawful wife of Helmstetter when he contracted the second marriage. Since Helmstetter's conviction, No. 1 has obtained a divorce from him.
     The court of appeals may err at times, but it did not err in this instance--at least, that is the opinion of those familiar with the facts in the case.

     Last Saturday, Mrs. Engers filed suit for a divorce from her husband, Jacob Engers, who has twice forced her into court to meet the awful charge of insanity, but in each attempt, he was foiled. Mrs. Engers, after the second attempt to throw her in a maniac's cell, showed the spirit of a true woman by taking recourse to the courts of justice. As the suit for divorce could not be called before March 1, 1891, Mrs. Engers was wise enough to insert a clause in the petition that alimony might be allowed her for the support of her little children pending the suit. Engers appeared in court this morning with poorly assumed meekness to fight any allowance of alimony. In a sad voice, he informed the court how he was burdened with debts and how utterly impossible it would be for him to allow his wife and little children, scarcely out of their infancy, anything whatever. He pleaded long and pleaded well, but Judge Burke is used to eloquence and gave a righteous decision in favor of the plaintiff. The following is the order: The defendant is ordered to file a full and complete inventory as heretofore directed on or before January 1, 1891. The plaintiff is allowed $50 per month from December 23, 1890. The sum to be paid on December 26, 1890.

     Judge Tucker gave Florence Godfrey a Christmas present this morning--in the shape of a divorce from William Godfrey, which was doubtless as acceptable as a turkey or well-filled stocking.

     John Klein was granted a divorce from his wife, Mary Klein. The defendant deserted the plaintiff about ten years ago, going to St. Louis. The plaintiff never saw her afterward.

     John H. Mastman sues Barbara Mastman for a divorce.

     The engagement of Miss Juliet H. Mandlebaum, the handsome and accomplished sister of Mrs. Philip Sanger, and Mr. Joseph Koon, a prominent business man of New Haven, has been announced. Miss Mandelbaum, who has many friends and admirers in Dallas who extend their warmest congratulations, is visiting her sister in New Haven, but will probably return to the city before her marriage.
Miss Francis Harris from near Kansas City, is visiting her aunt, Mrs. W. H. Abrams at her residence on Ross avenue.

     Henry Gylfe sues Hannah Gylfe for a divorce.
     Mrs. Laura E. Hawkins sues J. A. Hawkins for a divorce.
     Annie Roberson sues William Roberson for a divorce.
     Julia Powers sues Patrick Powers for a divorce.

     The county clerk issued a marriage license yesterday to Flemming James Woolen and Carrie Davis. The couple are colored, the prospective bridegroom being in his sixtieth year and the prospective bride in her thirtieth.