Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Surnames: CHICK
Classification: Marriage
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/jZI.2ACEB/190
Message Board Post:
Am not related but may be of interest to someone who is. I have no further info but you may find similar extracts from more old newspapers at URL:
<http://www.newspaperabstracts.com/index.php>
Vern D
//////////////////////////////////
Transcribed by Dee Sardoch <deesar(a)frontiernet.net>
//////////////////////////////////
The San Andreas Independent
San Andreas, Calaveras County, CA
Saturday, 3 December 1859
*****************************
DIVORCE -- divorce before the District Court this week. In the case of CHICK vs. CHICK, the Jury rendered a special verdict in favor of Mrs. CHICK. Judgment not yet rendered.
DISTRICT COURT --
-Mary A. CHICK vs. Alfred P. CHICK; Action for divorce, on the ground of cruel treatment. Issue tried by a Jury, who rendered the following verdict for plaintiff: "We, the Jury, in the case above named, find that,
First -- the defendant did, before the commencement of this suit, bruise and cruelly treat plaintiff -- the bruising and cruel treatment consisting in seizing her by the throat and bruising her head against the mantle-piece -- in, drawing a pistol upon her and in wanton and unprovoked accusations of wantonness and lack of chastity.
Second -- that the continuance of the marital relations between the parties would render the condition of plaintiff intolerable, and would subject her to danger of serious bodily harm, scenes similar to those already enacted, but of an aggravated character, could be reasonably anticipated, in the future, which would render a continuance of marital relations between the paries intolerable to both and would probably result in more serious bodily harm to plaintiff.
Third -- that before the commencement of this suit, plaintiff did well and
truly keep and observe her marriage vows and obligations toward the defendant.
Fourth -- that the plaintiff did not violate her marriage vows before defendant inflicted any cruel treatment upon her.
S.H. MARLETTE, Foreman
Ordered that judgment on the above special verdict be reserved for argument