Hide Article Text (OCR)
THE JEWELERS.THE KAHLO CASE.The Sensation in Common PleasCourt.Judge Pugsley’s court room is the scene of another sensational law suit.Immediately upon the conclusion of the Fournier divorce case, the case of Anna Kahlo against Caroline Myers, an action established by the wife of Henry Kahlo, to recover $10,000 damages forthe alienation of her husband’s affection.In her petition Mrs. Kahlo states that she was married to Ilenry Kahlo in April, 1858, and that they lived together until March, 1890. Also that twelve children were born to them, nine of whom are living at the present time.Further, that they lived together for twenty-six years, happy, contented and prosperous, and there was nothing to interfere or mar the happiness existing between them.Then the petition alleges that at some time during 1885 Caroline Meyers became acquainted with the plaintiff’s husband, and from that time on the defendant did alienate her husband’s affection and induced and persuaded him to abandon her and his home. That during 1885. 1886, 1887 and 1888 Mrs. Meyers frequently persuaded her husband to spend his evenings with her, and during 1888 and 1889 Mrs. Meyers wrote letters to her husband, addressing him as her husband. That he deserted her in March, 1890, and left the city with the defendant.—Toledo liee.LATER.MRS. KAHLO WINS—GIVEN A FULL VERDICT IN 1IER SUIT AGAINST MRS. MYERS.* In the damage case of Mrs. Ann Kahlo vs. Mrs. Catherine Myers, the plaintiff was Monday awarded all for vvLich she sued—$10,000. The case has been hotly contested from the start and all along public sympathy has seemed to te with Mrs. Kahlo. The jury reached a conclusion within 2b minutes after the case had been intrusted to its care. Judge l’ugsley’s charge to the jury was an able and impartial one. His review of the evidence was very careful and entertaining. He had manifestly given the important subject profound consideration. One point upon which he dwelt was that if the jury found that Mrs. Myers had con nived to win the affections of Mr. Kahlo before the commencement of the action for damages, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. At the conclusion of Judge Pugsley’s charge, Mr. Kahlo and Mrs. Myers and daughter left the court room. E. W. Tolerton and Alexander Smith were the attorneys for the plaintiff, Mrs. Kahlo. Mr. Pilliod, of counsel Mrs. Myers, says he will lile a motion for a new trial.— Toledo Commercial.
Newspaper Details
Defiance Democrat
Defiance, Ohio, US
Thu, Feb 09, 1893
Page 9
Full Page
Clipped by
Carol K.
KY, USA 29 Jan 2017
Other Publications Near Defiance, Ohio
Defiance Evening News
Defiance Daily Crescent
Defiance Express
Defiance Daily Crescent News
The Crescent-News
