from The Republican (Danville, Indiana)—issue of Thursday, November 18, 1909—page 1, column 5:
HADLEY VS. HADLEY
Emma Hadley Files Divorce Suit—Oscar Hadley Files Cross-Complaint
Mrs. Emma Hadley has filed suit for limited divorce from Oscar Hadley. The complaint alleges that they were married in March 1880 and separated in December 1908; that three children were born to them and that these children are now grown; that the defendant has been guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment in that he has told her that he did care for her; that he has an ungovernable temper and would become angry at the most trivial things which plaintiff did; that he nagged plaintiff, found fault with her appearance and manner of doing her household work; that plaintiff believes it to be a fact that he did so in order to force her to bring action for an absolute divorce; that he has not provided for her support since December 1908 and that he had notified merchants in Danville and Indianapolis not to sell her bills on his accounts; that he is worth $35,000; wherefore she prays for a divorce from his bed and board, for support, for attorneys' fees and $20,000 alimony.
Oscar Hadley, the defendant in the above action, on Tuesday filed a cross-complaint in which he alleges after reciting their marriage that the plaintiff abandoned him Oct. 21, 1908 and that since December 1908, they have not occupied the same house.
The cross-complaint alleges that during the first fifteen years of their married life, their relations were reasonably pleasant and that plaintiff was a faithful and dutiful wife, was affectionate and assisted him in their affairs. But for fourteen years, plaintiff has been guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment in that she was extremely jealous and unreasonably suspicious his every act; that she falsely accused him of infidelity; that when plaintiff was with him and he would speak to respectable women on the street, some of whom she would not know, she would call cross-complainant a dirty dog and other vile names and accuse him of improper relations with such women, that she in the presence of their children charged him with infidelity; that she would go to respectable women and ask them if he had ever made advances to them and tell them that he would bear watching; that he has been apprised many times that plaintiff had asked men and boys if they had ever seen cross-complainant with other women and would ask them to watch him and report any misconduct and that she would pay them well for such information, all to his shame and humiliation; that she went to his office in Indianapolis in his absence and [would] question the employees where he was and when told he was out of the city, she would question their truthfulness by calling attention to his overcoat hanging up and would claim he was concealed and would proceed to search for him; that on three occasions she came to the office of the treasurer of state and accused a deputy of misleading cross complainant and their son and charged the deputy with being the cause of cross-complainant's conduct in language unfit to be put in the complaint; that for ten years these charges have been made against him until they have become unbearable; that she called him a gambler and a drunkard; that until 1908 she had access to his bank account and drew checks at her pleasure and that she spent a large sum employing detectives to watch him and that it was so open that his friends spoke to him about it; that she denied him the right to have his near relatives visit their home; that she refused to cook for him or allow servants to do so and that for two years he cooked his own breakfast or purchased it; that during the campaign she circulated false stories about him and once said she would go to Republican headquarters and expose him and have him removed from the ticket and that she went to the Governor and charged their son and the cross-complainant with crimes and told the Governor that an investigation would prove the truth of her charges; that she said she would ruin him politically and financially and she would not be satisfied until she had reduced him to poverty; that for fourteen years his home life was miserable and intolerable on account of her wholly unwarranted charges and that he bore with her until it became impossible to live longer with her. Wherefore, he asks for an absolute divorce.