Defendant answer to Emma Douglas divorce charges 1909
The defendant in the Madison Georgia 1909 divorce case denies cruel treatment and asserts plaintiff health improved after separation. He details plaintiff’s early life, education limits, worldliness, and travels before marriage, claims rigid investigation by plaintiff and her father. He explains living with plaintiff’s parents, financial arrangements, and that he offered board payments which were refused, noting his modest business capital and financial strain during a panic year.
MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE
Emma Douglas
Emma Neal Douglas
Lee Douglas
Fulton Superior Court
Rosser
Bui
Europe
Atlanta
Madison
Georgia
Paintiff
Agagon
Joe
New York
Savoy
L S& Hopkine
Plaiitte
Defendant
Central Park
Glaintift
Plaintift
Plaintif
Ington Street
Washington Street
Plaintiff
Plaintff
Kimball House
Asia
Defendent
Atreeta
Chicago
Battle Creek
Michigan
Ake
Louisiana
America
Financial Duty and Domestic Strain at Washington Street
The defendant asserts he met all wife expenses and supported her fully while living at Washington Street. He details money flows, allowances, and loans, denying claims of neglect or niggardliness, and argues that the wife and her family never complained during those years despite hardship and misfortune, including illnesses and separations.
MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE
Washington Street
Defendant
Plaintiff
Washington
Arithmie
Majestic
la Parts
Majestic Hotel
Also Mentioned on This Page
Whitehall Street
Douglas, Thomas& Davison
Nimuelt
Plato Utt
Atneks
Nods
City of
Douglas,Thomas & Davison
Eopa
York
Hye
Peachtree Road
Dale