©2009-2016 Becky Higgins

Monday, July 19, 2010

Salome Wiedermann Divorce Papers

Amy Coffin's Week 29 of 52 Weeks to Better Genealogy suggests we "Practice reading handwriting..." and one blogger theme for Monday is Amanuensis [transcribing] Monday. So, today I'm able to "kill two birds with one stone", so to speak.

I've reached the point in writing Salome's story that requires telling about her second marriage and subsequent divorce. For some time I've needed to transcribe some of the documents found in the court papers. Because of Amy's challenge (thanks again!!) I managed to get through two important document articles yesterday.

First is the actual divorce decree which, probably, was written by the Court Clerk, Victor L. Schlaeger. The writing is greatly slanted to the right. At first, it was difficult to read but became easier as I went along. The transcription is below:

Date June 28 [18]92
Tax Fee Book 91, Page 311
Victor L. Schlaeger – Clerk – 437 County Bldg.
[Boilerplate text is in normal style; handwritten text is in italics]
Salome Wiedemann
No. 139873                             Decree
 Gottfried Wiedemann
This day comes the complainant hereto, by Eldredge & Finch her Solicitors, and this cause coming on now to be heard upon the Bill of Complaint filed herein, taken as confessed against the defendant, and the Court having heard all the evidence adduced herein by the complainant, and the same having been reduced to writing, and a certificate thereof filed herein, and having heard the arguments of Counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, finds all the material allegations in the bill of complaint herein are true and have been sustained by the evidence; and that the defendant has is guilty of habitual drunkenness for the space of two years prior to filing the bill of complaint herein.
It is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged and decreed by the Court that the complainant be, and she is hereby divorced from the defendant, and released from the obligations of her marriage, and restored to all and singular the rights and privileges of an unmarried woman. And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court, that the defendant be and he is hereby perpetually enjoined and restrained from entering, being or remaining in any house, or upon any premises, in which the complainant is now, or may hereafter be in lawful possession.
 The defendant is also perpetually enjoined and restrained from molesting or interfering with the complainant or her property in any manner whatsoever.
                                                                                      [signature illegible] 

Unfortunately, this decree issued on the 28th of July didn't seem to mean anything to Gottfried. Salome was back in court on Monday, July 1 asking for more help:

This petition was harder to read. It was probably written by someone in the attorney's office and seems to have been dashed off very quickly.

Cover Page:
C. No. 139873 –  3178 Superior Court of Cook County
S Wiedemann vs. G. Wiedemann
Petn for Attachment
Filed Jul 1 1892
[signature] Clerk
Eldredge & Finch
Attorneys and Counselors
Suite 314 Chamber of Commerce,
S. E. Cor Washington and LaSalle Sts.
[Petition is all handwritten]
State of Illinois
Cook County                           In the Superior Court
Salome Wiedemann
Gottfried Wiedemann
            To the Honorable Francis Wright, Judge, holding a branch of said Court:
             The undersigned Salome Wiedemann respectfully represents unto your Honor that she is a resident of said Cook County and is the complainant in the above entitled Cause. That on the 28th day of June 1892 there was entered in the above entitled cause by you honor, a final decree granting the complainant divorce from the defendant and enjoining the defendant from entering being or remaining in any house or upon any premises in which the complainant might thereafter be in lawful possession, or in any manner interfering with the complainant. But not withstanding said injunction said defendant did on the 29th day of June 1892 return to the defendant’s house in a drunken condition, and demand admittance. When refused, he threatened the life of the complainant and finally went to sleep in complainants room, and that he still remains around the complainants house in violation of said injunction.
Wherefore complainant prays that the defendant may be ruled to have cause why he should not be attached for contempt of court.
                                                                        [signature] Salomé Wiedemann
A contempt of court injunction was filed on July 1, 1892 and it appears Gottfried finally got the message as we don't hear about or from him from that day forward.

1 comment: