The Cook, the Revolver, and the Divorce Suit
A husband fights a court-ordered alimony payment, claiming his wife's threats and nagging made him lose his job.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Another unexpected turn in the affairs of the Smiths, who are deep in the divorce courts, took place this afternoon when, upon the showing of Smith's counsel, Attorney Paul, Court Commissioner Cain vacated his order of yesterday requiring Smith to pay his wife temporary alimony of $15, suit money amounting to $15, and $50 attorneys' fees. Smith based his motion for vacating the order upon his inability to pay the money the court required. In an affidavit, he swore that he is possessed of no such sums as $100, or that he is able to earn more than $12 to $15 a week as a cook, owing to an injury he received on the railroad in 1902. He further stated that, owing to his wife's constant nagging, he was compelled to give up a $15-a-week job in a local restaurant. On one occasion, he stated that she entered the restaurant and made threats on his life, showing a revolver to emphasize her statements.
“On one occasion he stated that she entered the restaurant and made threats on his life, showing a revolver to emphasize her statements.”
Divorce proceedings were public, humiliating, and weaponized in the early 20th century, with financial ability to pay alimony becoming a flashpoint for gendered arguments. This case highlights how domestic violence, even when alleged by a husband, was processed through the blunt lens of the Victorian-era court system.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.