Back to Family Tree Home Page
Please send corrections, questions, and comments to Bruce Clift

Divorce 1925 WI Kenosha Wendt


Description
Kenosha Co., WI, Family Court #1439


Source Text
State of Wisconsin, Municipal Court, Kenosha County
ELSIE WENDT, Plaintiff, -vs- STANLEY WENDT, Defendant.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

At a regular term of said court begun and held at the Court House in the City of Kenosha, in said County, on the 6th day of April, 1925, and on the 12th day of June, 1925, during said term.
Present: Hon. John C. Slater, Municipal Judge, Presiding.

The above entitled action having been duly noticed for trial, and the same having been duly placed upon the April, 1925, Term Calendar of said court, and the same having come on in its regular order to be heard before the court;

And it appearing that this is an action for divorce and that the summons and complaint in this action could not be personally served on the defendant, for the reason that said defendant is not a resident of the State of Wisconsin, as more fully appears by the return of the sheriff of said Kenosha County, on file herein;

And it further appearing that said original summons and duly verified complaint herein were filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court on the 28th day of March, 1925, and that thereafter, to wit: on the 30th day of March, 1925, plaintiff made and filed an affidavit stating, among other things, that personal service could not be obtained upon the defendant within the State of Wisconsin, although due diligence has been exercised so to do, and made application that service be made by publication, and said affidavit further stated that defendant's Post Office address is unknown; that thereafter, to-wit: on the 30th day of March,1925, and within ten days after the date of the affidavit of the plaintiff above named, the Honorable John C. Slater, judge of said court, made and entered an order in said action that service of the summons in said action be made by its publication in the TELEGRAPH COURIER, a newspaper designated as most likely to give notice to the defendant, once a week for six weeks, and provided further that mailing of a copy of the complaint should be omitted for the reason that the address of the defendant is unknown; that said application and affidavit for said order of publication and said order of publication were filed within ten days after the date of said order;

And it further appearing that the summons was duly published in the TELEGRAPH COURIER, a newspaper as required by said order once a week for six weeks, and that the day of the first publication was the 2nd day of April, 1925, and within three months from the date of said order, as more fully appears by the affidavit of R. S. Kingsley, on file herein;

And it further appearing that Arthur B. Ames, Divorce Counsel for the said County of Kenosha is interested in said action as attorney for the plaintiff, and that on the 15th day of May, 1925, an order was entered appointing Chester D. Richardson Special Divorce Counsel for this action;

And it further appearing that on the 15th day of May, 1925, and within ten days after completion of the service of said summons, a copy of said summons and of said complaint were duly served on the Honorable Chester D. Richardson, Special Divorce Counsel for said Kenosha County, as appears by the admission of such service on file herein;

And it further appearing that twenty days have elapsed since the date of the service of the summons and complaint upon said defendant and that said defendant has failed to answer or demur to said complaint, and that said defendant has in no manner appeared herein, and is now in default, as more fully appears by the affidavit of Arthur B. Ames, Esq., the attorney for the plaintiff, on file herein;

And the plaintiff appearing in person and by Arthur B. Ames, her attorney, and the State of Wisconsin appearing by Chester D. Richardson, Esq, Special Divorce Counsel for this action in and for said Kenosha County, and the defendant failing to appear either in person or by attorney, and after hearing the testimony and proofs submitted, and the said Chester D. Richardson, Esq., Special Divorce Counsel having appeared in open court on behalf of the public, made a fair and impartial presentation to the court and fully advised the court as to the merits of the case and the rights and interests of the parties and of the public, and being fully advised in the premises; and the judge having informed the parties hereto appearing in court that the judgment to be entered herein so far as it affects the status of the parties, will not become effective until one year from the date of the entry thereof, I, JOHN C. SLATER, the judge before whom this action was tried, do make these findings of fact and conclusions of law, as follows, to wit:

FINDINGS OF FACT

First: That for more than two years next preceding the commencement of this action the plaintiff has been a continuous and bona fide resident of the State of Wisconsin.

Second: That on the 5th day of November, 1907, at the City of Kenosha in the State of Wisconsin, the plaintiff and defendant intermarried and since that time have been and now are husband and wife.

Third: That no action for obtaining a divorce by either of the said parties was or has been at any time commenced or pending in any other court, or before any judge thereof, in this state or elsewhere.

Fourth: That there are living as the issue of this marriage four children, as follows: George Wendt, aged sixteen (16) years, John Wendt, aged fourteen (14) years, Peter Wendt, aged twelve (12) years, and Leo Wendt, aged ten (10) years.

Fifth: That neither of the parties hereto have any property, real or personal, except a small amount of household furniture of value not to exceed Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00).

Sixth: That the plaintiff has always conducted herself towards the defendant as a faithful and obedient wife.

Seventh: That on the 3rd day of October, 1914, without fault on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant wilfully deserted the plaintiff and has ever since said time and for more than one year immediately preceding the commencement of this action uninterruptedly continued said desertion, without cause on the part of said plaintiff.

Eighth: That all of the allegations of the complaint are proven and true.

And I find as
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

First: That the plaintiff is entitled to have the bonds of marriage subsisting between the plaintiff and defendant wholly dissolved.

Second: That the plaintiff is entitled to have the custody of the minor children awarded to her, according to the prayer of said complaint, and to have the household furniture awarded to her.

Third: That the plaintiff recover the costs of this action, including Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00) attorney's fees.

Let judgment be entered accordingly.

Dated at Kenosha, Wisconsin, this 12th day of June, 1925.
BY THE COURT:
 John C. Slater, Municipal Judge.

Findings approved this 12th day of June, A. D., 1925.
Chester D. Richardson, Special Divorce Counsel.