THE HARTZELL COURTHOUSE PAPERS

INTRODUCTION

The following is a transcript of a series of court cases between Reuben and Ruth Hartzell. It consists of three different cases.

The original documents were all hand written, and some parts were extremely difficult to make out. Portions appearing in () were paraphrased for this reason, but in all cases every effort was made to transcribe the text exactly as it appeared in the original. The result I believe, is interesting, and it provides many important insights that were not previously known.

The final analysis is left to the reader.

Ruth Hartzell vs. Reuben Hartzell

Petition for Alimony

The petitioner Ruth Hartzell, represents:

That she has been a resident of the State of Ohio for more than a year last part, and is now a bonafide resident of the said County of Seneca.

That on or about the 13th day of October, A.D. 1861, at said County of Seneca, she was married to Reuben Hartzell, and lived with the said Reuben Hartzell as a faithful and obedient wife, until on or about the 13th day of September, A.D. 1867.

That Mary L. Hartzell, aged five years on the 14th day of August last, is the only child of the said marriage. And the petitioner represents, That the said Reuben Hartzell regardless of his marital duties toward your petitioner, has been, and is, guilty of gross neglect of duty toward your petitioner, in consequence of which, the said Reuben Hartzell and the petitioner have separated and now, live separate and apart from each other. And the petitioner, also, represents, That at the time of the said marriage, she had, in her own right, a large amount of household and kitchen furniture, and that since the said marriage, with her own separate property, many valuable articles of like kind, have been added there to, all of which is now in the possession of the said Reuben Hartzell. That the said Reuben Hartzell is (owner) of the personal and real estate of the value three thousand dollars, and more, ---- that his said real estate is situated in Seneca County, Ohio, and is described, as follows;

"Beginning at a point on the east line of Washington Street sixteen and one half (16 1/2) feet from the Northwest corner of In Lot number Four Hundred and Thirteen (413) in the second ward of the City of Tiffin and resuming thence N 84 E. about one hundred and eighty feet on a line parallel to the North line of said In Lot number four hundred and thirteen to a point opposite the Northeast corner there of - thence N 6 W. Sixty (60) feet (resuming S 84 W about one hundred) and eighty (180) feet to the east side of Washington Street - thence S 6 E. sixty feet to the place of beginning containing one fourth of an acre with full use and privilege of an alley sixteen and one half (16 1/2) feet wide adjoining the east side of said land."

And that his said personal estate, in part consists of money, and of promissory notes against (living) responsible parties, of the value of one thousand dollars and more.

And the petitioner represents that, the said Reuben Hartzell is a resident of said Seneca County.

The petitioner prays that the said Reuben Hartzell may be made a defendant to this petition - that he be compelled to answer each of the allegations thereof - that upon the final hearing of this cause the defendant be decreed to pay the petitioner reasonable alimony out of the said real and personal property of the defendant - that the same be decreed a lien upon the said property - that the exclusive custody of the said Mary L. Hartzell be awarded to the petitioner, and that the petitioner may have further and other reliefs.

Atty. for Petitioner G.E. Seney

In the Court of Common Pleas of Seneca County, Ohio

Ruth Hartzell vs. Rueben Hartzell

Petition for Alimony

The Clerk of Seneca Common Pleas:

Will issue, against the said Reuben Hartzell, a Summons (with a copy of the foregoing petition), directed to the Sheriff of Seneca County, Ohio, returnable according to the law.

Atty. for Petitioner G.E. Seney

Ruth Hartzell vs. Reuben Hartzell

Defending in Seneca Common Pleas, Ohio

On Petition of the said Ruth Hartzell filed here on the 21st day of September A.D. 1867.

Now comes the said Reuben Hartzell and for answer to the Petition of the Plaintiff says -

It is not true that the Plaintiff has ever lived with him as a faithful or obedient wife as in her petition alleged.

It is not true that this defendant has ever been guilty of any neglect of duty whatever toward the Petitioner - nor is it true as charged that he was ever guilty of any ill treatment toward the Plaintiff in any respect whatever - nor is it true that in consequence of any ill treatment she was compelled to separate from him.

It is not true that any household or kitchen furniture is in (my possession belonging to her.) (Untrue, contrary thereto) all such charges are absolutely false and untrue.

He admits that he is the owner of said lot mentioned in the Petition but the same is not worth the amount charged in the petition, nor is he the owner of the amount of property mentioned.

This Defendant (denies) that the Plaintiff is entitled to anything as prayed in the Plaintiff’s Petition.

This Defendant further says that he is now and has been bonafide a resident of said Seneca County and State of Ohio ever since his said intermarriage with the Plaintiff - That he has at all times and in all things behaved and conducted himself toward his wife as a kind faithful and dutiful husband. That he provides and furnishes her with all things necessary to her comfort and (needs).

But this Defendant says that not withstanding all his kindness and his care in making provision for her, his said wife has even been unkind and unfaithful to him. That she frequently absolutely refused to cook for him or provide his meals or to take other proper care of his household affairs by reason whereof he has been put to great inconvenience and expense.

That he is a mechanic and is under the necessity of pursuing his avocation in order to procure a livelihood. So that by reason of her neglect and refusal aforesaid he was interrupted and retarded in his business and has been compelled to suffer great losses.

That on many occasions she, having no cause whatever, or provocation of any kind, has set upon him and cruelly struck, beat, and abused him in so much that he has been compelled to leave the house and stay away until her wrath would abate - he at all times refusing to even resist such cruelty by force in self defense. That (she would have caused serious) injury to him but for his having fled from the house to escape such injury.

That on another occasion only a few days prior to her separation from him she pursued and beat him with an iron instrument used to handle and lift lids of cooking stoves - following and beating him therewith until he escaped into the street.

He further says that on the 13th day of September, 1867, whilst he was absent from home pursuing his daily business she left his house taking with her every item of property which she brought to him of every kind and also taking with her much of his household goods and furniture in which she never had any interest and which never came to him through her in any way, but was purchased with his own money. Such as household goods, carpets and furniture and (etc.) with which she left Tiffin and set up housekeeping in the town of Green Springs, Ohio. That she also took with her all his notes, claims, books of account and (etc.). That among other things she took two certificates of deposit on the First National Bank of Tiffin amounting to about $170.00. These notes and a mortgage about $545.00 together with other notes, deeds and (etc.).

He further says that she was formerly the wife of one Joseph Spalding from whom she was divorced prior to her intermarriage with this defendant, and by whom she had five children whom he has (raised) and cared for to a very considerable extent, and at very considerable expense to him. She also after so leaving, went to the store and contracted debts for him to pay to a large amount, (about) $16.00 and more.

And he further says, that immediately, on setting up house keeping at Green Springs after leaving him as aforesaid, she took up with the said Joseph Spalding her former husband and kept him at her house in Green Springs night and day. And this defendant charges that she committed adultery then and there with the said Joseph Spalding.

This defendant therefore, says that his said wife is not a suitable person to have the custody and control of their infant daughter the said Mary L. Hartzell.

He therefore prays that this his answer may be taken and treated as a cross petition. That his said wife, the Plaintiff may answer all the allegations therein contained. That she be required to return to him his notes, claims and book of account. That on the final (hearing here of) he be granted a decree dissolving and forever annulling the marriage relation existing between the plaintiff and defendant and awarding to him the custody care and control of their said infant child.

And that he may have such other and further relief as equity and good conscience may require.

By W.P. and H. Noble Defendants Attorneys

Common Pleas Journal Vol. 13, Page 511 February 25, 1868

T.D. No. 1076

Ruth Hartzell vs. Reuben Hartzell

This day came the parties and thereupon this action is dismissed without prejudice. And it is ordered that the costs herein expended be paid by the defendant.

Reuben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

In the Court of Common Pleas Seneca County, Ohio Civil Action

Petition

The said Plaintiff, Reuben Hartzell for his cause of action against the Defendant, Ruth Hartzell says -

That the said Plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of the following goods and chattels, to wit, 1 cooking stove, 1 organ, 1 cupboard, 1 table, queensware and crockery, 12 quilts, 1 feather bed, 50 lbs. lard, dry goods, and miscellaneous articles, of the value of three hundred and six (306.00) Dollars and that the said defendant unlawfully detains the said goods and chattels from the possession of the said Plaintiff and has detained the same as aforesaid for the space of two days to his damage, One Hundred (100.00) Dollars.

Wherefore the said Plaintiff prays Judgment against the said Defendant that she, the said Defendant (do return) to the said Plaintiff the said goods and chattels, so unlawfully detained, and for the said sum of One Hundred Dollars, his damages so as aforesaid sustained, by reason of said unlawful detention.

George W. Bachman Plaintiffs Attorney

Reuben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

Court of Common Pleas Seneca County, Ohio Civil Action

To the Clerk of said Court

Issue a summons for Ruth Hartzell together with a Writ of Replevin, directed to the Sheriff of said County and made returnable according to Law.

Amount of damages claimed, $100.00.

George W. Bachman Attorney

State of Ohio Seneca County

Reuben Hartzell being first duly sworn says that the matters and things set forth in the foregoing petition are true as he believes.

Reuben Hartzell

Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me this 18th day of April 1878.

Jus. F. Sohn Notary Public Seneca County, Ohio

Reuben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

Petition for Divorce

And now comes the said defendant and moves the Court for a reasonable allowance of Alimony for her support and expenses during the pendancy of this suit.

By Hall and Pittenger Her Attorneys

Common Pleas Journal Vol. 18, page 324 Tuesday April 23, 1878

T.D. No. 4242

Reuben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

Divorce

This day came the parties and this cause came to be heard upon the motion of the defendant Ruth Hartzell, for the alimony for her sustenance during the pendancy of said petition for Divorce. And the court being fully advised in the premises do order, a judge and decree that the said Reuben Hartzell pay to the said Ruth Hartzell as alimony during the pendancy of said petition the sum of Five Hundred Dollars and the execution issue therefore as upon a Judgment at Law, and this cause is continued.

Reuben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

Petition for Divorce Pending in Seneca County Common Pleas, Ohio

The said defendant Ruth Hartzell being duly sworn says -

That the said Plaintiff has for several years last past, treated her with extreme cruelty and been guilty of gross neglect of duty towards her as his wife in the among other things, to wit, in calling her a hoar and telling her in the presence of other persons, members of her family that she thought more of other men than of him, upon nearly every occasion when she would call upon him for ordinary and necessary food and clothing for her comfort. That she has not now sufficient clothing to render her appearance decent or comfortable.

That these parties have one daughter, Mary Loretta Hartzell, aged 16 years next August, for whom the Plaintiff has only purchased within the last three years (material) for one dress costing 22 cents per yard and (material) for one dress costing one dollar and one under vest costing 25 cents, and that this said daughter has not now comfortable and necessary clothing.

That said Plaintiff has treated their said daughter with such cruelty and unkindness as to render her residence and stay with her father longer intolerable. That in consequence of said treatment this defendant rented a dwelling house and together with their said daughter, left the residence of said Plaintiff and moved into the said rented house taking with her from the residence of the said Plaintiff one stove used for warming and cooking purposes and has no other stove. One organ, one cupboard, one old table, Queensware and crockery, a number of quilts made by herself and daughter. One feather bed and a quantity of lard, and has no other articles of like description.

That said Plaintiff has filed a petition in this Court which is pending therein against her, this defendant wherein he claims said articles so taken by her and has ordered a writ of replevin against her, therefore, and without which she must suffer.

That since their marriage she has received from her fathers estate, 150 dollars which said Plaintiff has had and received from her. That she has largely contributed by her own labor and industry in furnishing means for support of their family, and enabling him to accumulate property.

That she has now only fifteen cents in money or means with which to purchase means of subsistence.

She further says that said Plaintiff owns a homestead worth 1500 dollars and has money at interest on hand or Bank to the amount of 2000 dollars. She therefore asks your honor for reasonable allowance as alimony for her support during the pendancy of this suit.

Ruth Hartzell

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of April, 1878.

W.O. Dildine Deputy Clerk

The said Mary Loretta Hartzell being sworn says that the matters and things set forth in the above affidavit are true in substance and in fact.

Mary Loretta Hartzell

Sheriff's Return on Order for Delivery of Personal Property

The Plaintiff in this case Reuben Hartzell refused to go with me to receive the within described goods and chattels and ordered by nine o'clock a.m. April 26th 1878 that I should return this writ without service.

Given under my hand this 29th day of April A.D. 1878. George D. Acker Sheriff

Returned and filed April 29, 1878.

W.O. Dildine Deputy Clerk

Reuben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

In the Court of Common Pleas Seneca County, Ohio Civil Action

State of Ohio, Seneca County

Reuben Hartzell the Plaintiff in the above entitled cause being first duly sworn according to law says;

That he has been informed that an order has been issued by the Court of Common Pleas of said County, allowing to the said Defendant Ruth Hartzell the sum of Five Hundred Dollars as temporary alimony during the pendancy of said cause.

Affiant further says that in fact his remaining property, both real and personal is worth not more than Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00), said property being one lot and a small house there on situated on Jackson Street in the 3rd ward of the City of Tiffin, Ohio.

Affiant further says that at the time the said Defendant Ruth Hartzell left said affiants home, she carried away and converted to her own use more than three hundred dollars worth of household goods and property of the said affiant, said goods and chattels not being the separate property of the said Defendant, but that the same has been paid for with money and means of said affiant.

Affiant further says that for more than a week last past, he has been confined to his bed with the lung fever and by reason thereof it is impossible for him to appear in person.

Wherefore the said affiant prays the Court that the said order decreeing to the said Defendant the sum of $500.00 be set aside, and for such other relief as the case may require.

Reuben Hartzell

Subscribed his name in my presence and sworn to before me this 29th day of April 1878.

Jus. F. Sohn Notary Public Seneca County, Ohio

Common Pleas Journal Vol. 18, page 438 Tuesday, July 23, 1878

T.D. No. 4241

Reuben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

Civil Action

It appearing to the Court that since the commencement of this action the said Plaintiff has departed this life, it is ordered that this action be, and it hereby is dismissed for want of parties.

T.D. No. 4242

Reuben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

Divorce

It appearing to the Court that since the commencement of this action the said Plaintiff has departed this life, it is ordered that this action be, and it hereby is dismissed for want of parties.

Ruth Hartzell - Plaintiff vs. Philip Emich,

Administrator of the Estate of Reuben Hartzell, deceased - Defendant

Civil Action

Petition

The said Ruth Hartzell, Plaintiff complains of the said Philip Emich, Administrator of the Estate of Reuben Hartzell, deceased:

For that the said Reuben Hartzell in his lifetime filed a petition and commenced a civil action in this court against this Plaintiff alleging in substance among other things that on or about the first day of October, 1861 he was married to the said Plaintiff, Ruth Hartzell and conducted himself towards her as a true and faithful husband, but that she disregarded her duties in the (premises), and had been guilty of extreme cruelty for more than three years and had abandoned and left his bed and board, praying that she might have legal notice of that proceeding be compelled to answer the said petition and that on the final hearing thereof, he might be divorced from her and have such other relief as in equity and good conscience he might be entitled to in the premises.

That having received legal notice in the premises, she on the 23rd day of April, 1878, filed in said court, and in said action a motion for reasonable allowance by said Court of Alimony for her support and expenses during the pendancy of that suit or action, and that such proceedings were therefore had in said action, that on the said 23rd day of April, 1878, the said parties, Reuben Hartzell and Ruth Hartzell came into said court and that suit, cause or action came to be heard upon the said motion of the said Ruth Hartzell for Alimony for her sustenance during the pendancy of that petition the sum of five hundred dollars and that execution issue therefore, as upon a judgment at law.

That the said Petition, suit, or action for Divorce was afterwards continued and pending in said Court 1878, at which said term, trial on the 23rd day of July, 1878 it was made to appear to the said court that since the commencement of that action for Divorce the said Reuben Hartzell had departed this life. It was there upon ordered that the said action be and the same was by said court dismissed for want of parties, all (of) which will more fully and at (length) appear by the proceedings in said Petition or action for Divorce now remaining of record in said court.

That the said sum of five hundred dollars so adjudged to be paid by the said Reuben Hartzell to the said Ruth Hartzell as aforesaid was not paid or any part thereof by the said Reuben Hartzell in his lifetime, nor has the administrator paid any part of it. Although the said Ruth Hartzell on the 28th day of December 1878, presented and (submitted) her claim and demand therefore duly authenticated, to the said administrator against the said estate, the said estate not having been reported (resolvent), yet the said administrator therefore disputed and rejected the same, refusing to pay any part thereof.

That the said sum of five hundred dollars, with the interest there on from the said 23rd day of April 1878 is due to her from the said estate. That the said Philip Emich was duly appointed by the Probate Court of said County, administrator of the said estate, and qualified as such prior to the 10th day of July, 1878.

The said Plaintiff therefore prays for judgment in the premises for the said sum of five hundred dollars with interest thereon from the 23rd day of April, 1878, and for such relief herein as may be just and equitable.

By Hall and Pittenger Her Attorneys

The said Ruth Hartzell being duly sworn says that she believes the statements in the foregoing Petition to be true.

Ruth Hartzell

Subscribed to in my presence and sworn to before me this 17th day of January (1879)

W.O. Dildine Deputy Clerk

The Clerk of said court will issue a Summons in the above entitled action returnable according to law to the Sheriff of Seneca County, endorse suit brought to recover $500.00 with interest from April 23rd, 1878.

Hall and Pittenger Plaintiffs Attorneys

In the Court of Common Pleas of Seneca County, Ohio

Ruth Hartzell - Plaintiff vs. Philip Emich, Administrator of the Estate of Reuben Hartzell, deceased

Answer

And now comes the said Defendant and by way of answer to the Petition of the Plaintiff says.

That said Plaintiff should not have or maintain her said action because the Defendant says.

That the said Reuben Hartzell had no knowledge or notice of the motion made by the said Ruth Hartzell for alimony pending said suit, had no knowledge of the making of its order at the time this order was made until some days thereafter.

That immediately upon ascertaining that such order was made the said Reuben Hartzell on the 30th day of April, 1878 made a motion in said cause, and filed his affidavit therein, asking that said order should be set aside and vacated or so modified as to be in proportion to the amount of the property of said Rueben Hartzell.

That the said sum of five hundred dollars, so adjudged against the said Rueben Hartzell was largely in excess of his ability, (and) was founded upon the child support due the daughter of said Hartzell as shown by the affidavit of said Ruth Hartzell on file in said cause.

That the said Court of Common Pleas at said term adjournment on the 29th day of April A.D. 1878 hearing said motion on the part of said Hartzell for the modification of said order was unheard, and the same was continued at said term until the next term of said Court.

That the next term of the Court of Common Pleas was held on the 23rd day of June A.D. 1878, that the said Rueben Hartzell died on or about the 5th day of May, A.D. 1878, leaving said motion undisposed of, and the said action by reason of the death of said Rueben Hartzell abated.

That the said suit was pending in said Court from the 20th day of April, 1878 to the 5th day of May A.D. 1878 when the same (so abated by) the death of the said Rueben Hartzell, and that said amount so allowed was largely in excess of what was necessary for her support, was largely in excess of what should have been allowed by this Court as Alimony (pending trial), taking into account the property, means and ability of said Rueben Hartzell to pay.

That immediately upon the death of said Rueben Hartzell administration was taken out upon the estate of said Rueben Hartzell, and this Defendant was appointed and qualified as the administration upon the estate of the said Rueben Hartzell and that afterwards on the day of May, A.D. 1878 the appraisers set off and allowed to said Ruth Hartzell for her support, for one year from the death of said Rueben Hartzell, the sum of three hundred dollars, which this Defendant has paid to her.

That by reason of the premises the said estate and property of the said Rueben Hartzell will be greatly wasted and an unjust and inequitable portion being obtained by said Ruth Hartzell and the said order should be modified.

Wherefore this defendant prays that said order of said court may be modified, said motion of the said Hartzell entertained and for such other and further relief as may be proper in the premises.

W.L. Brewer Attorney for Defendant

The Defendant being duly sworn says that he believes the statements made in the (foregoing) answer are true.

Philip Emich

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 17th day of February, A.D. 1879.

Jeremiah Rex Clerk

Court of Common Pleas, in and for the County of Seneca and State of Ohio.

Ruth Hartzell, Plaintiff Against Philip Emich, Administrator of the Estate of Rueben Hartzell, deceased - Defendant

Civil Action

Reply

And now comes the said Plaintiff, Ruth Hartzell, and for reply to the answer of the said defendant herein.

Denies that the said Rueben Hartzell deceased had no knowledge or notice of motion made by the said Ruth Hartzell for Alimony pending the said suit or proceeding for Divorce, or that he had no notice or knowledge of the making of the said order or rendition of said judgment when made in the premises.

Denies that the said Rueben Hartzell made any motion at the term of said court, at which the said order was made or judgment rendered in the premises, to have the said order, or judgment set aside and vacated or modified.

Denies that any motion of the said deceased was continued at that term of said Court in the premises.

Admits and says, that the said term of said Court adjourned on the 29th day of April, 1878.

Denies that the said sum of five hundred dollars was any more than she was entitled to, or that he was (unable) to pay, or was made for the support of their grown up daughter, or was more than was necessary or in excess of what should have been allowed by said Court in the premises.

Denies that any part of the estate set off as (well) as adjusted to her in the premises will be wasted, or that such amount is inequitable or unjust in the premises.

The said Plaintiff therefore prays for judgment as she prayed in her said petition.

By Hall and Pittenger Her Attorneys

The said Ruth Hartzell being sworn says that she believes the statements in the foregoing reply to be true.

(not signed)

Signed in my presence and sworn to before me this 18th day of February 1879.

(not signed or notarized)

Common Pleas Journal Vol. 19, Page 232 Monday May 26, 1879

W.D. No. 519

Rueben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

Civil Action

This day came on and was heard the motion of Philip Emich, Administrator of Rueben Hartzell, deceased, to reinstate this cause upon the trial docket of this Court, left off at the June term, 1878. Upon consideration whereof it is ordered by the court that this case be reinstated upon the trial docket of this Court and be set down for trial at the present term of this Court.

Common Pleas Journal Vol. 19, Page 240 Tuesday May 27, 1879

T.D. No. 4622

Ruth Hartzell vs. Philip Emich, Administrator of the Estate of Rueben Hartzell, deceased

Civil Action

This day came the parties by their attorneys and within parties requiring a jury submit this cause to the Court upon the pleadings and testimony. Upon consideration whereof and being fully advised in the premises the Court find that the matters and things mentioned and set forth in the Petition of the Plaintiff, Ruth Hartzell, are true and that there is now due to the said Plaintiff from the Defendant, Philip Emich, as Administrator of the estate of Rueben Hartzell, deceased, upon the judgment set forth in said petition the sum of five hundred and thirty one dollars and fifty eight cents.

It is therefore considered that the said Plaintiff recover of said Defendant as Administrator of the estate of said Rueben Hartzell, deceased, the said sum of five hundred and thirty one dollars, and fifty eight cents together with her costs in this action taxed to $ and to be levied and paid out of the estate of Rueben Hartzell, deceased, in the hands of said defendant to be administered.

Common Pleas Journal Vol. 19, Page 308 Friday June 6, 1879

T.D. No. 4242

Rueben Hartzell vs. Ruth Hartzell

Civil Action

This day came the said administrator of Rueben Hartzell, deceased, and the said Ruth Hartzell by her Attorneys, and the motion to readjust and revise the allowance of Alimony heretofore made by this Court during the lifetime of the said Rueben Hartzell, came on to be heard, and the Court being fully advised, it is ordered that the said motion be, and the same is hereby dismissed at the cost of said estate.