Newspaper article about the Stokey divorce: 1/30/1900
Full size image is below.
This article, from the Stark County (Ohio) Democrat, contains the full text of Mama Margaret's petition for divorce from Papa Charles. Sort of harrowing.
1900-01-30: ~AUDIO~---images---comment---transcript---notes---links---site navigation
1900-01-30: audio---~IMAGES~---comment---transcript---notes---links---site navigation
Image #1 of two for this article.Scroll up for the audio reading.Scroll down for the transcript.
Image #2 of two for this article.Scroll up for the audio reading.Scroll down for the transcript.
1900-01-30: audio---images---~COMMENT~---transcript---notes---links---site navigation
This article was something of a bombshell to me when I read it. The family story was simply that Papa Charles had a bad temper. The divorce petition makes it clear that "had a bad temper" was a polite papering over of reality.
1900-01-30: audio---images---comment---~TRANSCRIPT~---notes---links---site navigation
PROF. CHARLES F. STOKEY SUED FOR DIVORCE.
Wife Alleges That He Has Been Guilty of Extreme Cruelty and Neglect of Duty.
FULL TEXT OF PETITION IN WHICH CHARGES ARE MADE.
States That She Was Obliged to Leave Him and They Have Been Living Apart For About Three Weeks — Says He Called Her Names and For the Past Two Years Has Not Supported Her — Counsel Engaged and He Will Fight the Case.
At 11 o’clock Monday morning the most sensational divorce case that has been filed in common pleas court for many months was started by Judge Fawcett on behalf of the plaintiff in the action. The suit is brought by Mrs. Margaret P. Stokey and the defendant is Prof. Charles F. Stokey. The prominece of the parties involved, coupled with the startling charges of the petition made the case one of more than passing interest.
Judge Fawcett presented the petition to Judge McCarty before filing it with the clerk of courts and an injunction was granted by the court restraining the defendant from interfering with his wife in any way or of disposing of any of his property till her affairs are answered. The petition in full is as follows:
Margaret P. Stokey, Plaintiff
vs
Charles F. Stokey, Defendant.
Petition for divorce and alimony.
The plaintiff Margaret P. Stokey, says that she is a bona fide resident of the County of Stark, and State of Ohio, and has been such resident for many years past. That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1874, at the city of Pittsburg, Pa., she was married to the defendant, Charles F. Stokey, and that ever since said marriage she has conducted herself toward the said Charles F. Stokey as a faithful and obedient wife.
Plaintiff says that five children were born as the issue of said marriage, as follows, to-wit: William Stokey, Alma S. Stokey, and Laura Stokey, who are of legal age; Frederick Stokey, aged 20, August 5, 1899, and Eva Stokey, aged 15, April 3, 1899.
That on or about the fore part of September, 1896, at a time when the plaintiff was suffering severely from a fall and injury, the said defendant without a cause or justification whatever, so far as this plaintiff was concerned, was guilty of extreme cruelty toward her, in this, to-wit:
He called her a —- liar; a brute, a mule, a hypocrite, a lying villain, and continued to swear at, curse her and abuse her, by coarse, profane and obscene language for some length of time.
That in the month of December, 1895, at their residence in Canton, Ohio, he was guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he struck her over the head with a wash basin, threw water on her, called her a —- liar, a —- brute, a —- mule, a hypocrite and many other names of a similar character, all of which the plaintiff cannot now recall; that when he struck her with the wash basin, as aforesaid, she was protected from further injury by him from her son William, who interfered for the purpose of preventing any further injury, when the defendant seized the butcher knife and undertook to use the same on his son, William, but was prevented from doing so by his daughter, Laura, and by his son escaping from the house.
That in the month of June, 1897, near the middle part of the month, at a time when the plaintiff was sick, and unable to move from one chair to another, the defendant was again guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he swore at, and cursed her, called her names and used language of and toward the plaintiff of a character in substance as used heretofore in this petition.
That again on December 5, 1898, the defendant was guilty of extreme cruelty towards the plaintiff in this: That while at the dinner table, he became angry at the plaintiff, because some of the things cooked for dinner were scorched, as he claimed, upon the stove; swore and cursed plaintiff, calling her all kinds of names, said she was a —- liar, a —- mule, a brute and many other names which the plaintiff cannot now recall; swore at and cursed the children in her presence and hearing without a cause or provocation therefor.
That again in the month of August, 1899, the said defendant was guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he again cursed her, called her names such as set forth heretofore in the petition, and kept it up until neighbors were about to interfere and threatened to have him arrested.
That again on or about the 1st day of December, 1899, he was guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he repeated of and concerning her the language heretofore set forth in this petition, calling her a —- liar, a —- brute, and many other names of a similar character, lifted his foot and threatened to kick her, kept this up until plaintiff was compelled to leave the house and seek the protection of her mother, and when she left the house, locked her out, and prevented her from coming back to the house for some length of time.
Plaintiff says that said defendant was continually guilty of extreme cruelty toward your plaintiff at divers and sundry times and very frequently for the past three or four years by continually swearing at her, scolding her, threatening her, calling her vile and improper names such as a —- liar, a —- brute, a —- mule, villainous liar and hypocrite, shaking his fist at her time and time again, by scolding her at nights, night after night, many times till after midnight, and at times until she was compelled to leave her room and seek relief in the room of her daughters, by coming to the room where she was and keeping up the abuse until at times near morning, by the use of language such as the following: “I could see you ground in mince meat,” “I could see you roasted in hell,” I could see your head split open and broken to pieces with iron”, “I could see you deep in hell,” and language of similar character. That for the past few years this conduct has been almost continuous with him; has been kept up to such an extent that life has become almost unendurable to the plaintiff, and that she can no longer with safety to herself continue to reside and live with him. That he has on numerous occasions and times during the past years, the exact dates of which the plaintiff is unable to give, been guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he has written out many confessions and undertaken to compel her to sign them, in which she was to confess that she had been guilty of all the shortcomings of the family, and the cause of all the trouble, and all bad luck, and whatever had gone wrong or between her and her husband was her fault and that he was not to blame in any manner for the same, but that she, alone, was responsible therefore; that he would call the children in and some times his sisters and read the confession or confessions in their presence, and in their presence undertake to compel her to sign the same. That at the time their son Frederick was about to leave as a soldier to Cuba, he undertook to compel her to make a confession before their son left for the war, that she was to blame for all disputes and all trouble that had ever existed in the family; that she was the cause of all their misfortunes and bad luck, etc.
Plaintiff therefore says that the extreme cruelty used by the defendant toward her for the past three or four years has been of such continuous character and such an exasperating nature, that it is impossible for her longer to continue to live with him; that by reason of such conduct she was compelled to and did separate from him on the 9th of January, 1900, as to live separate and apart from him and so continues to live separate and apart from him.
For said cause of action plaintiff says that the defendant has been guilty of gross neglect of duty towards your plaintiff for two years last past in this: That he has wholly failed to supply her with the necessaries and comforts of life, and that she has been dependent upon her own efforts, and the support given to her by her said children for her maintenance and living during the past two years, and that the defendant does not now furnish her any means of support, whatever.
Plaintiff says that the defendant, Charles F. Stokey, is the owner of a lot number 2462 in the city of Canton, Stark County, Ohio, on which there are two good dwelling houses. Said lot being 50 feet by 200 feet in depth and extending from Eighth Street to Ninth Street, valued at about $4,500 on which there are mortgages and incumbrances amounting to about $2,000, that the defendant is owner of a large amount of household goods, furniture, kitchen utensils, all situate in house No. 909 W. Ninth street., Canton, Ohio, which defendant threatens to dispose of and convert into money.
Plaintiff is afraid the defendant may do her bodily injury or harm.
Wherefore, plaintiff prays the court for an order restraining the said defendant from in any manner interfering with her, from in any wise selling or incumbering or disposing of the above described real or personal property or household goods, described and owned by him.
And upon the hearing of this cause she may be divorced from the said defendant; that she may be awarded the custody of the two minor children, Frederick Stokey and Eva Stokey; that she may be allowed reasonable alimony out of the property of the said defendant, and for all such other and further relief as in equity she may be entitled to.
J.P. FAWCETT
Attorney for the Plaintiff
This petition has been hanging fire for several days and it is understood that efforts at an amicable settlement were made, but without result. It is said that Prof. Stokey has retained the firm of Welty & Albaugh to look after his interests and that the case will be contested to the end.
Wife Alleges That He Has Been Guilty of Extreme Cruelty and Neglect of Duty.
FULL TEXT OF PETITION IN WHICH CHARGES ARE MADE.
States That She Was Obliged to Leave Him and They Have Been Living Apart For About Three Weeks — Says He Called Her Names and For the Past Two Years Has Not Supported Her — Counsel Engaged and He Will Fight the Case.
At 11 o’clock Monday morning the most sensational divorce case that has been filed in common pleas court for many months was started by Judge Fawcett on behalf of the plaintiff in the action. The suit is brought by Mrs. Margaret P. Stokey and the defendant is Prof. Charles F. Stokey. The prominece of the parties involved, coupled with the startling charges of the petition made the case one of more than passing interest.
Judge Fawcett presented the petition to Judge McCarty before filing it with the clerk of courts and an injunction was granted by the court restraining the defendant from interfering with his wife in any way or of disposing of any of his property till her affairs are answered. The petition in full is as follows:
Margaret P. Stokey, Plaintiff
vs
Charles F. Stokey, Defendant.
Petition for divorce and alimony.
The plaintiff Margaret P. Stokey, says that she is a bona fide resident of the County of Stark, and State of Ohio, and has been such resident for many years past. That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1874, at the city of Pittsburg, Pa., she was married to the defendant, Charles F. Stokey, and that ever since said marriage she has conducted herself toward the said Charles F. Stokey as a faithful and obedient wife.
Plaintiff says that five children were born as the issue of said marriage, as follows, to-wit: William Stokey, Alma S. Stokey, and Laura Stokey, who are of legal age; Frederick Stokey, aged 20, August 5, 1899, and Eva Stokey, aged 15, April 3, 1899.
That on or about the fore part of September, 1896, at a time when the plaintiff was suffering severely from a fall and injury, the said defendant without a cause or justification whatever, so far as this plaintiff was concerned, was guilty of extreme cruelty toward her, in this, to-wit:
He called her a —- liar; a brute, a mule, a hypocrite, a lying villain, and continued to swear at, curse her and abuse her, by coarse, profane and obscene language for some length of time.
That in the month of December, 1895, at their residence in Canton, Ohio, he was guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he struck her over the head with a wash basin, threw water on her, called her a —- liar, a —- brute, a —- mule, a hypocrite and many other names of a similar character, all of which the plaintiff cannot now recall; that when he struck her with the wash basin, as aforesaid, she was protected from further injury by him from her son William, who interfered for the purpose of preventing any further injury, when the defendant seized the butcher knife and undertook to use the same on his son, William, but was prevented from doing so by his daughter, Laura, and by his son escaping from the house.
That in the month of June, 1897, near the middle part of the month, at a time when the plaintiff was sick, and unable to move from one chair to another, the defendant was again guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he swore at, and cursed her, called her names and used language of and toward the plaintiff of a character in substance as used heretofore in this petition.
That again on December 5, 1898, the defendant was guilty of extreme cruelty towards the plaintiff in this: That while at the dinner table, he became angry at the plaintiff, because some of the things cooked for dinner were scorched, as he claimed, upon the stove; swore and cursed plaintiff, calling her all kinds of names, said she was a —- liar, a —- mule, a brute and many other names which the plaintiff cannot now recall; swore at and cursed the children in her presence and hearing without a cause or provocation therefor.
That again in the month of August, 1899, the said defendant was guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he again cursed her, called her names such as set forth heretofore in the petition, and kept it up until neighbors were about to interfere and threatened to have him arrested.
That again on or about the 1st day of December, 1899, he was guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he repeated of and concerning her the language heretofore set forth in this petition, calling her a —- liar, a —- brute, and many other names of a similar character, lifted his foot and threatened to kick her, kept this up until plaintiff was compelled to leave the house and seek the protection of her mother, and when she left the house, locked her out, and prevented her from coming back to the house for some length of time.
Plaintiff says that said defendant was continually guilty of extreme cruelty toward your plaintiff at divers and sundry times and very frequently for the past three or four years by continually swearing at her, scolding her, threatening her, calling her vile and improper names such as a —- liar, a —- brute, a —- mule, villainous liar and hypocrite, shaking his fist at her time and time again, by scolding her at nights, night after night, many times till after midnight, and at times until she was compelled to leave her room and seek relief in the room of her daughters, by coming to the room where she was and keeping up the abuse until at times near morning, by the use of language such as the following: “I could see you ground in mince meat,” “I could see you roasted in hell,” I could see your head split open and broken to pieces with iron”, “I could see you deep in hell,” and language of similar character. That for the past few years this conduct has been almost continuous with him; has been kept up to such an extent that life has become almost unendurable to the plaintiff, and that she can no longer with safety to herself continue to reside and live with him. That he has on numerous occasions and times during the past years, the exact dates of which the plaintiff is unable to give, been guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff in this: That he has written out many confessions and undertaken to compel her to sign them, in which she was to confess that she had been guilty of all the shortcomings of the family, and the cause of all the trouble, and all bad luck, and whatever had gone wrong or between her and her husband was her fault and that he was not to blame in any manner for the same, but that she, alone, was responsible therefore; that he would call the children in and some times his sisters and read the confession or confessions in their presence, and in their presence undertake to compel her to sign the same. That at the time their son Frederick was about to leave as a soldier to Cuba, he undertook to compel her to make a confession before their son left for the war, that she was to blame for all disputes and all trouble that had ever existed in the family; that she was the cause of all their misfortunes and bad luck, etc.
Plaintiff therefore says that the extreme cruelty used by the defendant toward her for the past three or four years has been of such continuous character and such an exasperating nature, that it is impossible for her longer to continue to live with him; that by reason of such conduct she was compelled to and did separate from him on the 9th of January, 1900, as to live separate and apart from him and so continues to live separate and apart from him.
For said cause of action plaintiff says that the defendant has been guilty of gross neglect of duty towards your plaintiff for two years last past in this: That he has wholly failed to supply her with the necessaries and comforts of life, and that she has been dependent upon her own efforts, and the support given to her by her said children for her maintenance and living during the past two years, and that the defendant does not now furnish her any means of support, whatever.
Plaintiff says that the defendant, Charles F. Stokey, is the owner of a lot number 2462 in the city of Canton, Stark County, Ohio, on which there are two good dwelling houses. Said lot being 50 feet by 200 feet in depth and extending from Eighth Street to Ninth Street, valued at about $4,500 on which there are mortgages and incumbrances amounting to about $2,000, that the defendant is owner of a large amount of household goods, furniture, kitchen utensils, all situate in house No. 909 W. Ninth street., Canton, Ohio, which defendant threatens to dispose of and convert into money.
Plaintiff is afraid the defendant may do her bodily injury or harm.
Wherefore, plaintiff prays the court for an order restraining the said defendant from in any manner interfering with her, from in any wise selling or incumbering or disposing of the above described real or personal property or household goods, described and owned by him.
And upon the hearing of this cause she may be divorced from the said defendant; that she may be awarded the custody of the two minor children, Frederick Stokey and Eva Stokey; that she may be allowed reasonable alimony out of the property of the said defendant, and for all such other and further relief as in equity she may be entitled to.
J.P. FAWCETT
Attorney for the Plaintiff
This petition has been hanging fire for several days and it is understood that efforts at an amicable settlement were made, but without result. It is said that Prof. Stokey has retained the firm of Welty & Albaugh to look after his interests and that the case will be contested to the end.
1900-01-30: audio---images---comment---transcript---~NOTES~---links---site navigation
1.
This is one of a series of documents about the divorce of Mama Margaret and Papa Charles.
You can find links to all the documents that I've uploaded so far in:
2.
Plaintiff says that five children were born as the issue of said marriage, as follows, to-wit: William Stokey, Alma S. Stokey, and Laura Stokey, who are of legal age; Frederick Stokey, aged 20, August 5, 1899, and Eva Stokey, aged 15, April 3, 1899.
Alma’s middle initial was G, not S.
Fred's full first name was Fred, not Frederick.
Laura was 19 at this time, seventeen months younger than Fred, who was 20, but the petition says she is of legal age but he is not.
3.
That he again cursed her, called her names such as set forth heretofore in the petition, and kept it up until neighbors were about to interfere and threatened to have him arrested.
I wonder if the neighbors who threatened to have Papa Charles arrested in August 1899 were the Bradens.
4.
that he would call the children in and some times his sisters and read the confession or confessions in their presence, and in their presence undertake to compel her to sign the same.
I thought about this article when I reread a 1970s letter from a distant Stokey cousin:
Additional note: Papa Charles liked to shift blame from himself to others. See: I have always been treated fairly and kindly by my Republican friends, while on the other hand I have been treated most unjustly by some of the Democrats in Canton, particularly by the Democratic school board.
...and also: He avers that the examination to which he was subjected, under his application for increase pension, was not a true and honest examination, or at least that the report of his disabilities was not a true and honest report of said disabilities at that time, and he has reason to believe that the report so made by said Board of Examining Surgeons at Massillon, Ohio, was unjust and prejudicial to him, and the result of personal prejudice conceived against him by one of more of the members of said Board.
5.
Plaintiff says that the defendant, Charles F. Stokey, is the owner of a lot number 2462 in the city of Canton, Stark County, Ohio, on which there are two good dwelling houses. Said lot being 50 feet by 200 feet in depth and extending from Eighth Street to Ninth Street
Reading stuff aloud is so useful. It was while I was doing the audio reading of this article that I realized why I was having trouble figuring out if the Stokeys lived on Eighth Street or Ninth Street or what.
And then it occurred to me that it was the threat to the property, not the abuse, that was the real cause of the petition for divorce: Mama Margaret and her children were afraid they would be thrown out onto the street. So I went to look up the address on Google Maps, and of course it wasn't as easy as I had hoped. Did I want NE, NW, SE, or SW? I tried looking up lot number 2462 in the Stark County website but got nowhere. I guess they've changed things since 1900 - who'd have thought it?
So now I'm waiting until I get a new idea in my head.
Later: It didn't give me any new ideas, but there's a reference to the mortgages on the properties in Papa Charles's 1899 application for a disability pension:
And still later:
The same lot number is mentioned when the propert was purchased. So I really ought to be able to find it online today, someday when I'm feeling ambitious. Henry H Myers to Charles F. Stokey, lot 2462, Canton, $800
6.
J.P. FAWCETT
Attorney for the Plaintiff
I googled on JP Fawcett but didn’t find anything useful.
His name and other names related to the case appear in:
7.
Mama Margaret must have absolutely hated having her dirty linen aired all over the front page of a local newspaper. Her preferred newspaper was The Repository, not the Democrat, but she still must have hated it.
This is one of a series of documents about the divorce of Mama Margaret and Papa Charles.
- The previous document in the series is: (There is none. This is the first.)
- The next document in the series is: 1900-03-16 NEWSPAPER ITEM ABOUT THE STOKEY DIVORCE
You can find links to all the documents that I've uploaded so far in:
2.
Plaintiff says that five children were born as the issue of said marriage, as follows, to-wit: William Stokey, Alma S. Stokey, and Laura Stokey, who are of legal age; Frederick Stokey, aged 20, August 5, 1899, and Eva Stokey, aged 15, April 3, 1899.
Alma’s middle initial was G, not S.
Fred's full first name was Fred, not Frederick.
Laura was 19 at this time, seventeen months younger than Fred, who was 20, but the petition says she is of legal age but he is not.
3.
That he again cursed her, called her names such as set forth heretofore in the petition, and kept it up until neighbors were about to interfere and threatened to have him arrested.
I wonder if the neighbors who threatened to have Papa Charles arrested in August 1899 were the Bradens.
4.
that he would call the children in and some times his sisters and read the confession or confessions in their presence, and in their presence undertake to compel her to sign the same.
I thought about this article when I reread a 1970s letter from a distant Stokey cousin:
Additional note: Papa Charles liked to shift blame from himself to others. See: I have always been treated fairly and kindly by my Republican friends, while on the other hand I have been treated most unjustly by some of the Democrats in Canton, particularly by the Democratic school board.
...and also: He avers that the examination to which he was subjected, under his application for increase pension, was not a true and honest examination, or at least that the report of his disabilities was not a true and honest report of said disabilities at that time, and he has reason to believe that the report so made by said Board of Examining Surgeons at Massillon, Ohio, was unjust and prejudicial to him, and the result of personal prejudice conceived against him by one of more of the members of said Board.
5.
Plaintiff says that the defendant, Charles F. Stokey, is the owner of a lot number 2462 in the city of Canton, Stark County, Ohio, on which there are two good dwelling houses. Said lot being 50 feet by 200 feet in depth and extending from Eighth Street to Ninth Street
Reading stuff aloud is so useful. It was while I was doing the audio reading of this article that I realized why I was having trouble figuring out if the Stokeys lived on Eighth Street or Ninth Street or what.
And then it occurred to me that it was the threat to the property, not the abuse, that was the real cause of the petition for divorce: Mama Margaret and her children were afraid they would be thrown out onto the street. So I went to look up the address on Google Maps, and of course it wasn't as easy as I had hoped. Did I want NE, NW, SE, or SW? I tried looking up lot number 2462 in the Stark County website but got nowhere. I guess they've changed things since 1900 - who'd have thought it?
So now I'm waiting until I get a new idea in my head.
Later: It didn't give me any new ideas, but there's a reference to the mortgages on the properties in Papa Charles's 1899 application for a disability pension:
And still later:
The same lot number is mentioned when the propert was purchased. So I really ought to be able to find it online today, someday when I'm feeling ambitious. Henry H Myers to Charles F. Stokey, lot 2462, Canton, $800
6.
J.P. FAWCETT
Attorney for the Plaintiff
I googled on JP Fawcett but didn’t find anything useful.
His name and other names related to the case appear in:
7.
Mama Margaret must have absolutely hated having her dirty linen aired all over the front page of a local newspaper. Her preferred newspaper was The Repository, not the Democrat, but she still must have hated it.
1900-01-30: audio---images---comment---transcript---notes---~LINKS~---site navigation
LINKS TO OTHER RELEVANT PAGES IN THIS WEBSITE
DOCUMENT LISTS FOR PEOPLE:
- WILL: DOCUMENTS ----- Related
- ALMA: DOCUMENTS ----- Related
- FRED: DOCUMENTS ----- Related
- LAURA: DOCUMENTS ----- Related
- EVA: DOCUMENTS ----- Related
- MAMA MARGARET: DOCUMENTS ----- Related
- PAPA CHARLES: DOCUMENTS ----- Related
- NON-FAMILY: THE BRADENS ----- Related
RELATED DOCUMENTS/PAGES:
- 1880-09-30 NEWSPAPER ITEM MENTIONING PAPA CHARLES
- 1899-03-11 FAMILY INFO IN PAPA CHARLES'S PENSION APPLICATION
- 1899-10-27 NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT PAPA CHARLES
- 1900-03-16 NEWSPAPER ITEM ABOUT THE STOKEY DIVORCE
- 1900-05-22 NEWSPAPER ITEM ABOUT THE STOKEY DIVORCE
- 1901-04-15 SECOND APPLICATION FOR INCREASED PENSION FOR PAPA CHARLES
- 1975-09-01 LETTER FROM IRENE STOKEY KANOUFF TO KAY
1900-01-30: audio---images---comment---transcript---notes---links---~SITE NAVIGATION~
WHERE AM I?
WHAT ARE THE PREVIOUS PAGE AND THE NEXT PAGE?
WHERE CAN I FIND THIS DOCUMENT IN OTHER LISTS?