Leta and Ralph divorce, part two

In my search for documents and factual history of my great-grandmother Leta’s life, I was fortunate to have come across her divorce filing from her first husband, my great-grandfather Ralph Chetister, The petition was filed by attorney Telma R. Smith in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio on June 28, 1922.

While I wonder if this was a particularly difficult act, the document itself, as I suppose it must have had to in 1922, presents a the litany of grievances. These are rather disturbing. In the short document (two and a half pages), Leta lists several incidents of cruelty, mean-spiritedness and even violence. Leta is the plaintiff and Ralph is the defendant.

The document states “That while plaintiff and defendant were still living together plaintiff was obliged to refrain from having lady visitors call upon plaintiff because of defendant’s insulting and ungentlemanly conduct toward said visitors, humiliating plaintiff, and causing plaintiff great distress of mind.”

And while the complaint claims that Ralph called Leta “vile and indecent names, unfit to be set forth herein” and “charged plaintiff with unchastity,” she counter-charges that “defendant was in the habit of consorting and keeping company with woman other than his wife, frequenting dances with said women and escorting them home from dances and other places of amusement, remaining away until a late hour at night, causing plaintiff great anxiety and distress of mind.”

While personal charges of unfaithfulness and neglect detail their own viscidity, the complaint includes a very powerful accusation, that “while plaintiff and defendant were still living together, defendant refused to work and provide plaintiff with the common necessaries of life, and that it became necessary for plaintiff to keep borders for the purpose of maintaining the house and supplying herself and family [they had two children] with the necessaries of life.” This long paragraph concludes with a clincher, “that plaintiff, notwithstanding her poor health, has been required to depend upon her own efforts and the assistance of friends for support and maintenance.”

I am sure that the court did not look up on this favorably, and I wonder if my great-grandfather was working at the time of the divorce, since he hadn’t been during the separation (according to this complaint, at least), but had been for many years of their marriage.

Finally, the document concludes with a personal revulsion: “That defendant contracted or became infected with a loathesome [sic] skin disease; that defendant’s untidiness and uncleanliness of person constantly jeopardized plaintiff, putting plaintiff in great fear of contracting the aforesaid disease from defendant; that when plaintiff would ask defendant to use care and discretion in connection with said disease, defendant would become enraged, exercise less care and discretion, calling plaintiff vile and indecent names, unfit to be set forth herein.”

The document then concludes, “Wherefore, plaintiff prays that upon the final hearing hereof she may be divorced from said defendant, and awarded the care, education, custody and control of said two minor children, and for such other and further relief to which she may be entitled in the premises.”

On November 8, 1922, Leta was awarded her divorce. The court costs were $1,870.65. While “Alimony, property right and custody of minor children [were] agreed upon by the parties hereto and approved by the court,” Leta was charged with paying the court costs.

Three weeks later, she married husband number two—Albert E. Mohr.