~AUDIO~---images---comment---transcript---notes---links---site navigation
audio---~IMAGES~---comment---transcript---notes---links---site navigation
Scroll up for the audio reading.Scroll down for the transcript.
audio---images---~COMMENT~---transcript---notes---links---site navigation
Papa Charles says he has never abused Mama Margaret. Never! I suppose his lawyer told him he had to say that. On the other hand, Papa Charles likes to shift blame away from himself, so maybe he believes it.
audio---images---comment---~TRANSCRIPT~---notes---links---site navigation
STOKEY DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS.
Says He Has Not Treated His Wife In a Cruel Manner.
A COMPLETE REFUTATION.
Insists That His Wife's Petition Is Not Correct Save as to the Ownership of Property and Other Patent Facts.
Some time since the wife of Professor Charles F. Stokey sued him for divorce, alleging that he treated her cruelly. The News-Democrat at the time printed the text of the petition. Prof. Stokey now comes into court and makes answer, denying each and every allegation in the petition that reflects on his actions as a husband. The full text of the answer is as follows:
Margaret P. Stokey, plaintiff,
vs.
Charles F. Stokey, defendant.
Answer.
Now comes the said defendant, Chas. F. Stokey, and for answer to the first cause of action in the plaintiff's petition says:
That he admits that the said plaintiff is and has been a resident of Stark county for many years last past, and that on or about the 23d of December, 1874, she was married to the defendant. He further admits that four children were born of said marriage as are named in said petition. Further answering, the said defendant says that he denies each and every allegation set forth in said first cause of action.
Second: And for answer to the second cause of action set forth in the plaintiff's petition, he says he admits that he is the owner of lot No. 2462 in the city of Canton, Stark county, Ohio, on which there are two dwelling houses, as is described in said second cause of action, and that said property is worth probably $4,500. He further admits that there are incumbrances upon such property to the amounts named in the second cause of action. Defendant further admits that he is the owner of some household and kitchen furniture, but he denies that he threatens to dispose of the same, or to convert it into money. Further answering, the said defendant says that he denies all of the allegations in said petition, not herein especially admitted to be true. He therefore prays that the petition of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
WELTY & ALBAUGH,
Attorneys for the defendant.
Charles F. Stokey, being first duly sworn, says that the facts stated and the allegations contained in the foregoing answer are true.
CHARLES F. STOKEY
Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 13th day of March, 1900.
JOHN T. BLAKE, Notary Public.
Says He Has Not Treated His Wife In a Cruel Manner.
A COMPLETE REFUTATION.
Insists That His Wife's Petition Is Not Correct Save as to the Ownership of Property and Other Patent Facts.
Some time since the wife of Professor Charles F. Stokey sued him for divorce, alleging that he treated her cruelly. The News-Democrat at the time printed the text of the petition. Prof. Stokey now comes into court and makes answer, denying each and every allegation in the petition that reflects on his actions as a husband. The full text of the answer is as follows:
Margaret P. Stokey, plaintiff,
vs.
Charles F. Stokey, defendant.
Answer.
Now comes the said defendant, Chas. F. Stokey, and for answer to the first cause of action in the plaintiff's petition says:
That he admits that the said plaintiff is and has been a resident of Stark county for many years last past, and that on or about the 23d of December, 1874, she was married to the defendant. He further admits that four children were born of said marriage as are named in said petition. Further answering, the said defendant says that he denies each and every allegation set forth in said first cause of action.
Second: And for answer to the second cause of action set forth in the plaintiff's petition, he says he admits that he is the owner of lot No. 2462 in the city of Canton, Stark county, Ohio, on which there are two dwelling houses, as is described in said second cause of action, and that said property is worth probably $4,500. He further admits that there are incumbrances upon such property to the amounts named in the second cause of action. Defendant further admits that he is the owner of some household and kitchen furniture, but he denies that he threatens to dispose of the same, or to convert it into money. Further answering, the said defendant says that he denies all of the allegations in said petition, not herein especially admitted to be true. He therefore prays that the petition of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
WELTY & ALBAUGH,
Attorneys for the defendant.
Charles F. Stokey, being first duly sworn, says that the facts stated and the allegations contained in the foregoing answer are true.
CHARLES F. STOKEY
Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 13th day of March, 1900.
JOHN T. BLAKE, Notary Public.
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.
Some time since the wife of Professor Charles F. Stokey sued him for divorce, alleging that he treated her cruelly. The News-Democrat at the time printed the text of the petition.
Yup, we've got it. See:
3.
That he admits that the said plaintiff is and has been a resident of Stark county for many years last past, and that on or about the 23d of December, 1874, she was married to the defendant. He further admits that four children were born of said marriage as are named in said petition.
Hey! There were five children born of said marriage! They were all named in the initial divorce petition!
4.
Charles F. Stokey, being first duly sworn, says that the facts stated and the allegations contained in the foregoing answer are true.
CHARLES F. STOKEY
Papa Charles knew how many children he had, so apparently he didn't bother to read the document before signing 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: 1900-01-30 DIVORCE PETITION FOR MAMA MARGARET
- The next document in the series is: 1900-05-22 NEWSPAPER ITEM ABOUT THE STOKEY DIVORCE
You can find links to all the documents that I've uploaded so far in:
2.
Some time since the wife of Professor Charles F. Stokey sued him for divorce, alleging that he treated her cruelly. The News-Democrat at the time printed the text of the petition.
Yup, we've got it. See:
3.
That he admits that the said plaintiff is and has been a resident of Stark county for many years last past, and that on or about the 23d of December, 1874, she was married to the defendant. He further admits that four children were born of said marriage as are named in said petition.
Hey! There were five children born of said marriage! They were all named in the initial divorce petition!
4.
Charles F. Stokey, being first duly sworn, says that the facts stated and the allegations contained in the foregoing answer are true.
CHARLES F. STOKEY
Papa Charles knew how many children he had, so apparently he didn't bother to read the document before signing it.
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
RELATED DOCUMENTS/PAGES:
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?