from The Republican (Danville, Indiana)—issue of Thursday, January 15, 1914—page 1, column 2:
MARITAL TROUBLES
New Year Starts with Disclosures of Unhappiness
[…] Hertha Rogers asks for a divorce from Ullen Rogers. They were married September 18, 1898, and separated December 31, 1913. They have one child, a daughter, now with the plaintiff at the home of plaintiff's mother in Coatesville. Plaintiff alleges that he has been guilty of cruel treatment, cursing her and calling her ill names; that he has on different occasions struck her with his fist and that on one occasion he followed her with a shotgun and threatened her life; that in fits of temper he has kicked the table and broken the dishes and threatened her bodily harm; that he has wrecked plaintiff's life and broken her down nervously; that he is not the proper person to have the custody of their daughter; that he is worth $5,000 and owes not to exceed $600. Plaintiff wants a divorce, $2,500 alimony and asks that he be enjoined from disposing of his property or from interfering with plaintiff or their daughter.
from The Republican (Danville, Indiana)—issue of Thursday, February 12, 1914—page 1, column 5:
SENSATIONAL CROSS-COMPLAINT
Ullen Rogers Asks That He Have Divorce
He Also Wants Custody of Their Daughter And He Gives His Side of Domestic Tragedy
Ullen Rogers, whose wife sued him for divorce last month, has filed an answer in general denial and also a cross complaint which bristles with allegations and which would indicate when the matter comes to trial, it will be some divorce case.
In his cross-complaint, Mr. Rogers charges his wife, the plaintiff, with cruel and inhuman treatment in that she was indifferent to her household duties, he being often compelled to prepare his own meals or do without. He alleges that she would often refuse to arise and prepare his breakfast in the busy season and he would have to prepare his breakfast or go to the fields to labor without anything toe at; that frequently when at hard labor, he would go to his home at noon for dinner and find no dinner prepared and that his wife had gone from home; that often when in harvest and with extra help employed, he had to abandon work and discharge his mean because plaintiff would not stay at home and prepare meals; that their daughter went to school at Clayton and that she would have to go to school without anything to eat and that he would have to furnish his daughter money so she could get breakfast and dinner in Clayton.
He alleges that his wife frequently went to Indianapolis and he would have to meet her at Clayton upon her return and to annoy him and over his protest, she made it an invariable rule not to return until after night.
She was, he alleges, ever unkind, discourteous and even insulting to his father, sister and other relatives so that he has been denied visits at his home of such persons while to her relatives and friends she extended most cordial welcome and hospitality.
He alleges that she nagged him concerning their circumstances in life, holding up the circumstances of other women more fortunately situated in the pleasures and enjoyments of life while she knew his financial condition and that he was doing all his circumstances would warrant to please her and gratify her whims; that to have him spend more money upon her and her daughter, she instilled into the mind of her daughter extreme and extravagant notions of living and disrespect for the child's father, so that the child has said to playmates that all she and mama cared for papa was for his money, all to the great pain and suffering of the cross-petitioner.
It is also alleged that she was wholly indifferent to the attention and love of her husband and that in 1912 she was much in the company of a young man named John Smith, whose home was in Kentucky, and who with a sister was visiting at the home of plaintiff's mother in Coatesville; that in August, 1913, plaintiff and her sister and the daughter of plaintiff went to Kentucky to visit at the home of the Smith's; that the visit lasted five weeks and upon her return the plaintiff complained of her lot in life and told defendant of her unhappy state of mind. He alleges that their daughter told him in the presence of the plaintiff that while they were at the home of the Smiths in Kentucky, that said John Smith had slept upon the floor with his body partly lying in the room occupied by plaintiff and her daughter as a sleeping room; that plaintiff's sister also said, in the presence of the plaintiff and the cross-petitioner, that she had seen John Smith sitting on the side of the bed occupied by the plaintiff; that shortly after he heard of these things, Smith and sister came to Coatesville on a visit and that on December 13, they came to the home of the cross-petitioner and remained for some three or four days, the said John Smith being much of the time alone with the plaintiff when she would be engaged in her housework; that while the Smiths were there, the family kept late hours and much of the time was spent by the plaintiff and her sister and Smith in a room away from petitioner and language reflecting upon the financial condition of the plaintiff and the cross-petitioner were freely used and in such a tone as to be heard by the cross-petitioner; that their separation took place under such circumstances.
By reason of these alleged facts and because he alleged that the home of plaintiff's mother is not a fit place to rear a child, and the plaintiff is not a fit person to have charge of the child, the cross-petitioner wants a divorce and the custody of their daughter.
from The Republican (Danville, Indiana)—issue of Thursday, March 12, 1914—page 2, column 3:
[Court Notes]
Hertha Rogers vs. Ullen Rogers. Divorce granted plaintiff. Custody of child given to defendant during school term and to plaintiff during vacation and child to have privilege of visiting other parent. Defendant to pay $3 per week for board of the child when with mother. Defendant to clothe, maintain and educate the child. Costs against defendant.