In The district Court of Norton County, Kansas.

Eliza H. Turner, Plaintiff vs. E. M. Turner----Answer and Cross Petition

Now comes the defendant E. M. Turner, and for answer to plaintiff’s petition herein filed, admits that the plaintiff is a resident of Norton County, State of Kansas, as alleged in her said petition and admits that on the 31” day of December 1887 the said plaintiff and defendant were legally married and are now husband and wife. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation, statement and averment contained in said plaintiff’s petition, not herein before admitted.

Cross Petition

Defendant for further answer to plaintiff’s cause of action and by way of cross petition alleges and says:  That for more than one year last past, prior to filing this, his answer and cross petition, and for more than one year prior to the date of the filing of plaintiff’s petition the said defendant was a bona fide resident of the State of Kansas, and is now a resident in good faith, of Norton County, said State.

That on the 31^st day of December 1887, at Norton, State of Kansas defendant was legally married to said plaintiff and ever since and at this time, are husband and wife: Defendant says that at all times during the married life of plaintiff and defendant, defendant has demeaned himself toward said plaintiff as a faithful husband, and that there is no fault on his part.

Defendant further says that plaintiff in disregard to her martial relations and obligations toward her said husband has been guilty of extreme cruelty toward her said husband, in this:-That the defendant is a physician and surgeon and has been engaged in the active practice of medicine and surgery in the County of Norton, for more than eighteen years;

That on or about July 1889 or within eighteen months after the date of the marriage, the plaintiff, without cause, reason or provocation became jealous of said defendant and by false accusations, insinuations and innuendoes accused said defendant of being unfaithful to her, that said plaintiff, at that time commenced to interfere with the defendant concerning the practice of his profession, by nagging him for being out late at night, engaged in his professional capacity, by refusing to prepare his meals in a suitable manner, when the said defendant was delayed in visiting his patients beyond the regular hours for meals, by instructing the hired help of the household to let him find what he could, to eat, if he could not be there at regular meals, and at meal hours; that during all the said times the said plaintiff has been cross, petulant, quarrelsome and disagreeable to-ward said defendant and that her said disposition to so act to-ward said defendant has grown and become more frequent and pronounced from time to time, even since July 1889 and up to about eighteen months prior to the filing of her petition for permanent alimony in the case; That on or about the month of January 1895 and at divers and different times since said date, and said plaintiff has called the said defendant by such names as :Old white headed fool”. “Old Bow Legs”, and accused him of being insane and crazy, and on the 15 day of August, 1898 the said plaintiff in a rude and angry manner assaulted the said defendant by taking the said defendant by his arm and jerking him around and pinching his arm; that on or about December 1893 the said defendant introduced electricity into his practice, that by reason there of the said defendant was compelled to secure the necessary batteries and apparatus to generate electricity  and transmit the same to patients; that to further aid him in his practice he purchased lot 27 block 19.,Norton Town Associations Addition to the town of Norton, the said property joining his residence property and office on the west, that he used the small building located on said lot and block to house a small gasoline engine and electric bath, that the gasoline engine was connected with the dynamo, which as located in his office, and used to generate electricity to be administered to his patients, in different forms, and to produce light for the office and to produce light around the premises, said engine being connected with the dynamo by a belt, that the plaintiff refused to allow an electric light to be place in the resident part of the premises here in after described as the home of plaintiff and defendant owned by defendant, that when defendant attempted to wire the front of the house and put in the insulators the said plaintiff would tear down injure and destroy the wires and insulators and when the said defendant was operating the dynamo and administering electricity to his patients, said plaintiff would throw the belt connecting the engine and dynamo thereby greatly annoying discommoding and interfering with defendant in the performance of his professional business, that the action and conduct of the plaintiff toward the said defendant were such as to compel the defendant to abandon his resident office, and electric bath room, and the removal of his patients to the building now occupied by him as a sanitarium, that the plaintiff has at divers times and dates since the removal of defendants medical office and treatment rooms designated the said Sanitarium as a “Harem”, thereby insinuating by innuendoes and false statements that the said Sanitarium was being used for immoral purposes, that said plaintiff has told patients, being treated by said defendant, that he could not do them any good, that he could not cure them, that they  were fooling their money away, that they were worse than they were when they came for treatment, that defendant was a crazy old fool, and not doing as much business as other doctors, and in every method attempted to break down injure and destroy his business, and bring his business into disrepute, cruelly and without cause: that the said plaintiff on or about December 1901 or January 1902 made and executed a will and by the terms of the will left all of their property owned by defendant and by plaintiff  to others than the defendant, except a life interest in their homestead to said defendant.

Second, as a further and second defense to plaintiffs cause of action, and by way of cross petition defendant alleges and says, that the plaintiff is guilty of gross neglect of duty toward this defendant and such gross neglect of duty has existed for more than one year last past prior to the filling of this defendants, answer and cross petition, and one year prior to the date of filing plaintiff petition, that said gross neglect of duty consisted in this, that about eighteen months prior to the commencement of his action said plaintiff  occupied a sleeping room in he second story of their residence property and refused to allow the said defendant to occupy the said room, or the bed with said plaintiff, that she compelled defendant to occupy a room on the ground floor and sleep therein by himself, that said plaintiff changed her sleeping place from the second floor to the ground floor, and compelled the defendant to leave the bed he had been occupying, and sleep on a cot in the same room, and that during all the times plaintiff refused to allow defendant to cohabit with her, and have sexual intercourse with her.

Defendant further alleges that the record title to the homestead of plaintiff and defendant to Lot number 29 Block 19 in Norton Town Associations Addition to the town of Norton, Kansas, is in plaintiff’s name; that the defendant purchased the said homestead with the earnings of his profession, and that all improvements, additions and repair have been made by defendant and with the earnings of his profession, and that no part of said premises were purchased by said plaintiff, and no money furnished by her to pay for same or any part thereof, that at the time of the marriage of plaintiff and defendant the plaintiff was without means and without property of any kind, save and except plaintiff owned an equity in common, with other heirs, children of plaintiff, in the North half of the North East, and the South east Quarter of the North East Quarter of section Sixteen, Township Two South, Range Twenty-Three, that the defendant paid the children of plaintiff and each and all of them for their interest in the said premises, with the understanding that he should own the said equity in common with the said plaintiff, one half interest owned and to be the property of each; that this equity was the only property owned by plaintiff at the time of their marriage, and that she has accumulated no property since said date.

Defendant alleges further that for a period from August 1889 to June 1895 the plaintiff and defendant kept borders at the request of plaintiff, that the defendant paid for all groceries, provision fuel bedding and all other necessaries for such business and for their home and paid for everything in the way of keeping up home expenses, and paid hired girl for plaintiff for all of this time for plaintiff, and in all for a period of fifteen years or about that length of time, that defendant paid all bills and expenses, and plaintiff collected as much as ninety percent of all board paid by boarders, while defendant did not secure more than ten percent of the money paid by boarders.

Wherefore defendant prays that he may be divorced from his said wife on account of the fault of the said plaintiff Eliz H. Turner as set fourth; that he may be entitled to enjoy his property, towit:- Lot 29  Block 19 N T AA. All so that he may be entitled to hold, own and enjoy his 1898 shares of stock in the Dr. E. M. Turner Sanitarium, all free and clear from the control of his said wife, and that he be entitled to own and enjoy his on half interest in and to the N1/2 and SE1/4 of section 36, t 2 r 23, free from his said wife's control and that he have all other equitable relief as may by the court seem just, and for costs of suit.

Thompson and Simmons Attorney’s for E. M. Turner.

Turner read the above and foregoing answer and cross petition, and that the statements facts and averment therein contained are true.  Signed Dr. E. M. Turner

Subscribed and sworn to before me the 13 day of October 1902.  A. A. Davis, Clerk of District Court

Permission is hereby given to file this answer and cross petition of defendant E. M. turner, out of time, and after answer day, and all objection to time of filing hereby waived.  C.D. Jones. Attorney for plaintiff.

In District Court, Norton County, Kansas

Eliza H. Turner—Plaintiff      E. M. Turner---Defendant

Amended Answer to Cross Petition

Comes now the above named plaintiff Eliza H. Turner, and for amended answer to cross petition of above named defendant herein says that she admits residence of defendant, his marriage to plaintiff and that the record title to the property described in said cross-petition is in plaintiff as alleged therein.

First: Plaintiff denies each and every material allegation in said cross petition contained except such as are above and herein after admitted.

Second: Further answering defendants said cross petition plaintiff says that she is the owner in her own right and title absolutely of Lot 29, Block 19, in NTAA. That by her assistance given to defendant, in his medical practice as nurse and attendant to and upon his patients, and the hard work she performed in keeping boarders and the saving of her earnings there from, and in other ways, and applying of same in payment of mortgage and other liens upon said property, she saved the same from going for debts.

Plaintiff further says that when she married defendant he owned no property whatever in his own right unless it was some personal effects which were encumbered with liens securing his debts; that it was trough her assistance and help that he was able to pay off debts he was so embarrassed with, and improve said described premises, and build up his professional practice.

Plaintiff further says that when she and defendant were married, she did own in common with her children by her first husband, Reuben C. Marsh, now deceased, and equity in the S1/2 of the NE ¼ and NE ¼ of SE ¼  Sec. 36, T. 2. R. 3, the same being school land settled upon by her said deceased husband; and by him purchased in 1879 at and for $160.00 per each Forty acre tract: that he then paid cash one tenth of said purchase money. That her said children did assign and transfer to plaintiff their and each of their interest in and to said land, simply with the understanding and consideration that she could keep up the interest, on the aggregate principal, amounting to $432.00 debt, until the same should become dur, and then pay the same to the state of Kansas and thereby secure a patent conveying the title thereto from said State to her; that she kept up said interest and the taxes on said land until April 1902, when she assigned her right, title and interest in the school land certificated she held thereto, and in said land, to one Alice Lockard for a valuable consideration; that the title to said land is still in said State, and that the principal in said certificates provided for, becomes due June 16^th, 1903.(Alice a daughter, married J. H. Lockard)

Plaintiff says that more than a year before the commencement of this suit defendant abandoned her bed and board and home without any cause of provocation whatever, and has refused to adequately provide for her since. That said abandonment has existed continuously ever since it began as aforesaid , and now exists, and during all said time defendant has not occupied said Lot 29 with plaintiff, as a homestead.

Plaintiff says that instead of attempting to discommode and interfere with defendant in his professional business by throwing belts of other wise annoying or hindering in use of electricity, she has often and repeatedly run over this city of Norton in the darkness of night in search of defendant to call his attention to running of the machinery therein used, fearing something was wrong. She had such a fear of danger connected therewith that she never inter-meddled in the least with said machinery.

She says that instead of trying to drive patients from defendant, by speaking untruly of his place of business, and by discouraging them by saying they were receiving no correct treatment, she at all times did and said everything she could to help him, and did slavishly nurse and helped to care for many patients for weeks at a time, both at the home of defendant, and out in the homes of patients in the city of Norton, and in the country.

Plaintiff says she is without fault in these premises, and further that defendant is not entitled to any divorce from her, nor any relief which he is seeking herein.

Wherefore- Plaintiff prays for a judgment denying defendant a divorce herein, and that he take nothing by this action, that she have judgment for costs herein and for such other relief as she is entitled to in these premises.  Attorney for Plaintiff—C.D. Jones

Eliza has read the said answer  and everything is true and correct.  Signed 20^th day of November 1902

Before A. A. Davis, Clerk of District Court