Crawford County, Pennsylvania

ADAIR, William v. Ann.  Petition of William Adair (signed with his mark), “of the County of Philadelphia in the State aforesaid [i.e., Pennsylvania],” sworn to at Philadelphia before a Supreme Court Justice 14 Jan. 1796 and filed that day (copy of subpoena directed to “Ann Adair formerly Ann Dyman and now known by the name of Ann Lopez [was] Left at her last place of abode in Second Street near Walnut Street,” Philadelphia); married “on the thirty first day of July One Thousand seven hundred and Eighty three … a Certain Ann DAYMAN”; cohabited “until about the Ninth day of August then next”; grounds: “when the said Ann Dayman without provocation on the part of the said William Adair willfully and maliciously deserted and absented herself from the said William Adair; and your Libellant further gives this Honnorable [sic] Court to know and be informed that the Said Ann Dayman well knowing her husband to be in full life did in Violation of [next word careted] her previous vow enter into a Second marriage with a certain Juzan Lopez giving out that She had mentioned [next word careted] intermarried with the said Juzan Lopez and hath and still doth continue to live with him as his Wife being called by his name dwelling in his House and sleeping in the same Bed with him In asmuch then as the said Ann hath willfully and maliciously without a just cause deserted her said Husband and entered into a Second Marriage in violation of her previous vow all which the Libellant expressly charges to be true and can make appear to the satisfaction of the Court and to the end that the marriage between the Libellant, and the said Ann may be annulled avoided and disolved and that he may be loosed from the nuptial Ties and Bonds of Matrimony entered into by him with the said Ann may it please your Honors to grant the writ of Subpœna to be directed to the Said Ann Commanding her to appear at this Libel and to Stand to and abide with Such order and decree as the Court make &c.”  [No testimony filed.]  Divorced 21 March 1796.  FHL film #1023001, images 6-12 (8).

ADAMS, Paninah v. Richard.  Petition of Panina Adams (signed Paninah Adams) “at Present the wife of Richard Adams of Radnor Township in the County of Delaware,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Isaac Lewis, affirmed at Philadelphia 26 Nov. 1799 and filed that day (defendant served personally by the Sheriff on 28 Nov. 1799, and alias subpoena served personally by the Sheriff of Delaware Co.); married Richard Adams, of Radnor Twp., Delaware Co., on 14 May 1770 ; grounds: he “by Cruel and barbarous treatment endangered her life, and offered such Indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable, and life burthensome, and thereby forced her to withdraw from his house & family.”¹.  Testimony taken and filed 14 March 1800 (affirmed): Issachar Lewis states inter alia “that he is a carpenter, and of the age of twenty years and upwards … that he know both the Parties, the Libellant being his aunt … that about two months ago the libellant came to the house of this deponent where she remained three weeks, and then went to the house of Mordecai Moore, about one mile from the defendants. The reason she gave for coming & staying with the deponent was that she was very ill treated by her husband, and she said she would never return to him unless she was secure that his conduct to her would be changed. That the defendant made it a practice to stop at the house of the deponent when going to & returning from Philadelphia (the house of the deponent being a public one) with a view as this deponent believed from his usual behavior to abuse and ill treat the libellant, and stopping very frequently tho he had seldom done so before the libellant came there, and at one time after some words had passed between them, which the defendant began by tantalising the libellant he stuck her twice with a cart whip that he held in his hand with great passion, and attempted to strike her several times with the butt end of the whip, but was prevented”; Mordecai Moore states “that he is a farmer of the age of thirty three and upwards … that he knows both the Parties, and the libellant is his wife’s aunt … that about the beginning of August last the libellant [next word careted] came several times to the house of this deponent complaining that she was so ill treated by her husband that she could not live with him, and she staid at the house of this deponent for some time, but returned to the defendants house at his request and on his promising to use her well. That some time after, this deponent being at the house of the defendant, he (the defendant) told this deponent that he would give the libellant a severe whipping as ever woman had, that he followed the libellant with a large club and made a blow at her, but she getting out of his way he threw the Club at her and hit her on the shoulder, this deponent then interfered, and the defendant told the libellant to get off of his premises or he would drive her to hell. The libellant then went to the house of the deponent at his request, as he thought it unsafe for her to remain there. That something had passed before this, which this deponent did not see. This deponent has frequently seen him [parenthetical careted:] (the defendant) on other occasions attempt to strike the libellant, but was prevented, and he has declared to her in the prisence of this deponent that he had driven her away, and was determined to keep her away for he lived much better without her. This deponent saw him strike the libellant at the house of Issachar Lewis (who was not present at the time) with a cart whip. That the libellant, from what this deponent has seen of her conduct and as he believes, never gave the defendant cause to ill treat her, always behaving to him in a proper manner, and that she has not returned to her husbands house since she last came to the house of this deponent as before mentioned … that the defendant owns about thirty six acres of land in Delaware County of the value of two thousand dollars, which this deponent believes and the defendant has told him is unencumbered, that the defendant is possessed also of personal property sufficient as he says to pay all his debts, and has also a house and lot in Shippensburg as this deponent believes, but of its value this deponent is ignorant.”   FHL film #1023001, images 13-28 (26).

ALBURTUS, Lewis v. Ann, also known as Nancy.  Petition of Lewis Alburtus of the City of Philadelphia, store keeper, dated at Philadelphia 7 April 1794, sworn to before an alderman of the City of Philadelphia the same day, and filed that day; married “a certain Ann HARNET of the City of Philadelphia” on 9 Aug. 1792; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “since which intermarriage the said Anne Harnet has committed the crime of Adultery with a certain James Davan, and has eloped from your Petitioner’sLibellant’s bed and board, and at this time lives in an adulterous intercourse with the said James Davan.”  [Interrogatories filed, but no testimony].  Divorced 5 Jan. 1795.  FHL film #1023001, images 29-40 (36).

ALEXANDER, Elizabeth v. George.  Petition of Elizabeth Alexander late Elizabeth WOOLLEY (signed with her mark), by her next friend John Rugar, sworn to before the Chief Justice [at Philadelphia?] 27 Feb. 1800 and filed that day at #168 March Term 1800; married “about five years ago”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said George since the first day of June [1799] committed divers acts of Adultery.”  Testimony taken 26 Aug. 1800: Charles Wallis states inter alia “that he knows both the Parties to this cause … that the libellant and respondent did live together and were generally reputed and considered to be man and wife … that in the month of September AD 1799 the said George Alexander the defendant applied to this deponent to go and live with him and work for him in his trade, and told this deponent at the same time that he had done with the libellant and married afresh: that his deponent accordingly went to live with the said George Alexander, and remained with him till the beginning of November following, during all which time a certain woman named Ann Bauman lived with the said George, and this deponent often [next word careted] saw them in bed together, as he slept in the room above them, and passed thro their room when he rose in the morning, and saw them in bed together almost every morning, that the defendant said he was married to the said Ann Bauman, and this deponent observed that he generally, if not always, slept without his shirt”; George Nunnemacher (signed George Nunamaker) states inter alia “that he knows both the Libellant and the Respondent … that he leased from [“from” apparently changed to “to”] the respondent the house in which he (the respondent) now lives for three years, that in the fall of the 1798 the respondent came and boarded with this deponent, and brought with him a young woman, named Ann Bauman (which name she is still called, but the respondent called her his wife: that the said George Alexander & Ann Bauman slept in a room in which there was but one bed, and this deponent has frequently seen them in bed together, and believes they still live together, and at the time aforesaid the said George Alexander and Ann Bauman lived in the same house with his deponent”; Mary Nunnemacher (signed with her mark) states inter alia “that she knows both the Parties to this Cause … that she is the wife of George Nunnemacker, that the said George Alexander and Ann Bauman lived together at the house of this deponent’s husband, that they slept together in a room in which there was but one bed, and this deponent has frequently seen them in bed together, and that the respondent called the said Ann Bauman his wife, but she always went by the [“the” changed from “that”] name [next three words careted] of Ann Bauman: and this deponent further saith that that she hath seen the said George Alexander and Ann Bauman in bed together at different times of the day as well as at night”; Mary Kephardt (signed with her mark) states inter alia “that she knows both the parties to this cause … that she lives in the next house to George Nunnemacker where the said George Alexander lived, that she can see from her house into the said George Alexander’s room, and has frequently seen him in bed with the said Ann Bauman in the morning and at other times of the day, And that she has often been in the said room, and there is but one bed in it.”  Divorced 1 Sept. 1800.  FHL film #1023001, images 41-53 (49).

ALLEN, Mary v. Thomas.  Petition of Mary Allen, of the City of Philadelphia, by her next friend Thomas Wood, sworn to before the Chief Justice 31 May 1796 and filed the same day (defendant served by proclamation and publication); married in Philadelphia Co. 2 Oct. 1786 “to a certain Thomas Allen of the city of Philadelphia Cordwainer”; cohabited [until 1 April 1794?]; grounds: “That on the first day of April [1794] said Thomas Allen forgetting the duty he owed to the Libellant did commit adultery with a certain Margaret Johnston, and hath ever since that time lived in adultery with her the said Margaret.”  [No interrogatories or testimony on file.]  Divorced 12 Dec. 1796.  FHL film #1023001, images 54-63 (59).

ALTIMUS, Susannah v. Jacob.  Petition of Susannah Altimus (signed Susana Altimus), of the City of Philadelphia, “wife of Jacob Altimus late of the same City,” by her next friend Mary Fowler, sworn to before the Chief Justice [at Philadelphia?] 14 Nov. 1801 and filed that day at #146 Dec. Term 1801; married “upwards of ten years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “her husband hath for more than four years past willfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself, without any reasonable cause from your Petitioner and Libellant, and committed adultery with divers lewd women whose names are to your Libellant unknown and in addition thereto hath knowingly entered into a second marriage, in violation of the previous vow which he had made to your Petitioner and Libellant.”  FHL film #1023001, images 64-68 (66).

ANDERSON, Hannah v. James.  Petition of Hannah Anderson, of the District of Southwork, Philadelphia, by her next friend Martin Rizer, sworn to at Philadelphia 17 June and filed 18 June 1799; married 11 July 1797; cohabited “untill within a month last past”; grounds: “when the said James without provocation on the part of the said Hannah Anderson did maliciously and willfully desert from the said Hannah and in violation of the said Marriage Vow did Elope and live in Adultry with a certain Susannah Leneville.”  FHL film #1023001, images 69-73 (69).

ANDREAS/ANTREAS, Abraham v. Susanna.  Petition of Abraham Andreas (signed in German script Abraham antreas), of Northampton Co., dated at Philadelphia 25 Feb. 1789, sworn to that day before one of the Supreme Court Justices and filed that day at April Term 1789; marriage date and place, and grounds for divorce: “That your Petitioner on or about [23 Jan. 1788], [next 13 words careted] and about nine or ten o’Clock of the night of the same day was arrested by a certain Jacob Keister of the County aforesaid, by virtue of a warrant (as the said Jacob Kiester informed your Petitioner) from Jacob Horner Esquire one of the Justices of the peace for the said County, upon a charge of fornication made against your Petitioner by a certain Susanna Boussort [or BUSSARD] of the said County. That after your Petitioner was so as aforesaid arrested, he was taken into a Sleigh by the said Jacob Kiester and others who carried your Petitioner in the course of the same night to divers public houses in the said County at which places they pressed and persuaded your Petitioner to drink great quantities of Rum, Wine and Syder, whereby your Petitioner became much intoxicated, That on the morning of the next day after his arrest so as aforesaid made, he was taken to the house of the said Jacob Horner Esquire, where more rum was given to your Petitioner. That he was thin [sic] & there informed by the said Jacob Horner Esq^r that the said Susanna had sworn that She the said Susanna was with Child by your Petitioner. That your Petitioner, denying the charge, was informed by the s^d Justice that the said Susanna had sworn the same & advised your Petitioner to marry the said Susanna & upon your Petitioner refusing so to do, was informed by the said Jacob Horner Esquire, Jacob Keister and the Brother of the said Susanna that he must either marry the said Susanna or be committed to Goal. Whereupon your Petitioner being much intoxicated and being advised & pressed by the said Jacob Horner Esq^r and the others to marry the Susanna, consented and thereupon the was married to the said Susanna by the said Jacob Horner Esquire. That after his marriage was aforesaid with the said Susanna, she the said Susanna immediately went away with the aforesaid Jacob Keister. And your Petitioner further saith that he never cohabited with the said Susanna either before or since their intermarriage and that from the time of their intermarriage as aforesaid he has never even seen the said Susanna. But that the said Susanna in violation of her marriage vows, immediately seperated from your Petitioner and hath repeatedly committed adultery and given herself up to lewd practices and to the having adulterous conversation and intercourse with lewd and debauched men: That the [next word careted] said Susanna hath repeatedly committed adultery with the said Jacob Keister and that she the said Susanna hath lived in open adultery with him the said Jacob for a long time since her intermarriage with your Petitioner.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 2 July 1789: James Taylor of Allen Twp., Northampton Co., “Pracktioner in Physic,” aged 24 and upwards, states “That he doth not know the above named Susanna Andreas, nor did he ever know or see the Libellant until this day, … That he did not personally know the said Susanna Andreas previous to her intermarriage with the Libellant, but that this Deponent being at the House of a certain Jacob Andreas, the brother of the Libellant, he there met a certain Jacob Kester [sic], who informed him that Susanna Bussard (then living with the said Jacob Kester in quality of a Servant, as this deponent believes) had been stopped upon the road about six weeks before by two men, who menaced that they would murder her unless she consented to let them have the carnal enjoyment of her person, which by force and threats they both accomplished and in so doing had exceedingly injured and lacerated the said said Susanna Bussard. And this Deponent saith that the said Jacob Kester further then intimated, that he thought the said Susanna Bussard was pregnant, and offered this Deponent a Half-Joe if he would use his medical knowledge in obtaining an abortion of the child, which the said Jacob Kester thought the said Susanna Bussard had conceived. That this Deponent was exceedingly offended at the proposition, and immediately communicated the same to the said Jacob Andreas And this deponent further saith That he has been informed and verily believes that the said Susanna Bussard is the person who is now married to the Libellant, that he has heard that the Libellant was in a state of intoxication at the time of the marriage, and that it was generally reported and believed that the child of which the said Susanna was pregnant before such marriage was begotten by the said Jacob Kester … That he does not know by whom the above Parties were married, that he was not present at the marriage, and that he doth not know anything that passed upon that occasion, further than is stated [above] … That he doth not know whether the Libellant ever cohabited or lived together with the said Susanna either before or since their intermarriage … That he does not know further than is related in his answer to the preceding interrogatories, anything respecting the said Susanna’s having had any other child than the one alluded in his answer [above] …”; Jacob Penningher (signed in German script Jacob Penninger) of Heidelberg Twp., Northampton Co., weaver, about 25 years of age, states “that he has known the Libellant and the said Susanna Andreas, formerly Susanna Bussard, for upwards of ten years, both of them living in his neighbourhood for a long time past. … That he knew the said Susanna long antecedent to her intermarriage with the Libellant, that she lived in the quality of a servant with Jacob Keister (who has been and a long time married, and was so, when the said Susanna lived with him) and that the people used to talk freely of an improper intercourse subsisting at that time between the said Susanna and the said Jacob Keister … That the said Susanna and the Libellant wre married (as this Deponent believes) sometime in the month of January 1799, by Jacob Horner Esqr, one of the Justices of the Peace for Northampton County, at his House in Lowhill township in the said last mentioned County, this Deponent being present at the time of the said marriage. And this Deponent further saith, That the morning [next two words careted] before that on which the said parties were married, the said Susanna had sworn the child to have been begotten by the Libellant, and thereupon the said Jacob Keister, a certain Casper Cloats, a Constable, Jacob Bussard, the brother of the said Susanna, and this Deponent (who attended at the instance of the Constable) went to the home of Jacob Keister Andreas, the Libellant’s brother, where the Libellant makes his home, and upon seeing the Libellant, the said Jacob Keister told him, that as he, the Libellant, would not own the child, they had obtained a warrant against him, and that he must immediately go before the Justice. The said Libellant peremptorily denied that the child was his, or that he had ever had any connection with the said Susanna, and refused to consent to go before the Justice, till the said Jacob Bussard declared, that if he, the Libellant, would not go voluntarily, they would tie him hand and feet, and drag him to the Justices’s on a sleigh, when from the dread of violence, the Libellant agreed to accompany the Constable to M^r Justice Horner’s, which was upwards of twelve miles distant. And this Deponent saith that at the home of the said Jacob Andreas, who kept a Tavern, and at several other places the persons aforesaid who attended the apprehending the Libellant, drank considerable quantities of wine, rum, and cyder, that the Libellant partook freely of the liquors, and that when he went before the Justice in the morning, he was very much intoxicated, and began to make a clamour, and to use such language as the Justice thought proper to reprove, but he was requested to forgive him by Caster Cloats, who observed that his [next two words careted] the Libellant’s misbehavior was entirely owing to his being very drunk. And this Deponent further saith, that the Libellant, having no bail, and being fearful of a commitment to prison, at length, though protesting that he never would live with her, submitted that the ceremony of marriage should proceed between him and the said Susanna, that on his [next two words careted] the Libellant’s return from the Justice’s, he was so drunk that he was obliged to be supported, and was immediately put to bed, that after he had been in bed sometime, the [next two words careted] said Susanna blew out the candle and lay down beside him, that in the morning they separated, the Libellant going back to his brother’s house, and the said Susanna returning with the said Jacob Keister to Jacob Keister house. … That he verily believes the Libellant and the said Susanna never did cohabit together either before or since their said intermarriage. … That he believes the said Susanna never had any other child, but that which she swore to have been begotten by the Libellant, but which it was reported generally, had really been begotten by the said Jacob Keister.”  Testimony taken at the City of Philadelphia 14 July 1789: Jacob Andreas, of Lehigh Twp., Northampton Co., aged 28 years and upwards, states “That he knows the parties to the above Cause, that he is the brother of the Libellant, and that the Defendant, Susanna, lives within three miles of the place of his abode. That this Deponent hath heard the above Parties were married, but that the said Abraham, the Libellant, this Deponent believes, was intoxicated at the time of the marriage, that it was a matter of compulsion on the part of the Libellant, and that none of the relations or friends of the Libellant were present at the marriage. That this Deponent believes the said Susanna to be a woman of loose and immoral character and conduct, and saith that it is generally reported that she has committed acts of fornication and adultery with a certain Jacob Keister both before and since her intermarriage with the said Libellant. That this Deponent hath seen the said Susanna and the said Jacob Keister come [careted word(s) interlined] together in a Sleigh to a Tavern (no other persons being in company with them) and after staying there sometime, they returned to the house of the said Jacob Keister, with whom the said Susanna lived for upwards of two months after her intermarriage with the said Libellant, during which two months the above transaction happened. That this Deponent hath been informed and verily believes, that since the intermarriage of the said Susanna and the Libellant, the said Susanna was seen at two different times, by Joseph Washborne and by Jacob Schwarts respectively, committing the act of adultery against a fence with the said Jacob Keister. That this Deponent has been informed and verily believes that the wife of the said Jacob Keister has repeatedly caught the said Jacob Keister and the said Susanna in bed together, and that the said wife of Jacob Keister has complained publicly of such misconduct, and more than once has violently driven the said Susanna from the bed in which She was lying with the said Jacob Keister.”  FHL film #1023001, images 76-104 (98).

ANDREWS, Sarah v. Jacob.  Petition of Sarah Andrews, of the City of Philadelphia, by her next friend Jacob Nice, affirmed before the Chief Justice [at Philadelphia?] 3 Aug. 1801 and filed that day at #227 Sept. Term 1801; “about six years ago was married to Jacob Andrews of the City of Philadelphia Taylor”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the said Jacob Andrews within these three years last past has been unfaithful to his Marriage Vow having been guilty of Adultery by connecting himself criminally with other Women – as your Libellant is informed and verily believes –, and that the said Jacob has for a long time past treated your Libellant in a very improper manner so as to render her further Continuance with him insupportable.”  Jacob’s answer (unsigned), sworn to 1 March and filed 2 March 1802, admits the marriage “on the [blank] day of [blank],” but “doth expressly deny the charge of adultery stated against him in the Libel of the said Sarah and this defendant further saith that … the said Sarah Andrews in violation of her marriage vow hath committed adultery at divers times since the time of their aforesaid marriage”; written on the cover: “Sarah Andrews the Libellant alledges that the facts stated in her Libel are true – and traverses & denies the facts charged in the Answer of the Respondent there to — and this she prays may be enquired of by the Country &c,” dated 2 March 1802.  FHL film #1023001, images 74-75, 105-109 (107).

ANTREAS – see ANDREAS

BADGER, Bela v. Susannah.  Petition of Bela Badger of Philadelphia sworn to and filed 28 Jan. 1806 at #44 March Term 1806; married 11 April 1794; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “Susan in violation of her marriage vow, hath for a considerable time past, to wit for the space of four years and upwards been guilty of wilful and malicious desertion and absence without a reasonable cause.”  Answer signed at New Bern, NC, before a Craven Co. Justice of the Peace 10 April 1806, admits marrying Bela on 2 April 1794, but denies that she deserted him without reasonable cause.  Testimony taken at Newborn, NC, 10 March 1806: Mrs. Lydia Badger, widow, aged 40 years and upwards, wife of Thomas Badger who was a brother of Bela, that she has known the defendant since infancy, that the parties were married at Newborn by Rev. Solomon Halling, and have not lived togther since 1794.  Mrs. Margaret Turner, wife of Thomas Turner, aged 51 years and upwards, that she has known the defendant since birth.  Testimony sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 18 March 1806: Thomas Allen states that he has boarded in the libelant’s home “in this city.”  FHL film #1023001, images 111-132 (128).

BALLANTINE, Mary v. John.  Petition of Mary Ballantine (signed Marey Ballantine), “Wife of John Ballantine of the CityCounty of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Alexander Taggart, sworn to (and signing Mary Ballantine) before the Chief Justice at Philadelphia 25 July 1797 and filed the same day at #587 Sept. Term 1797 (defendant being located at the corner of Third and Plum Streets according to the subpoena); married “several years ago”; grounds: “he hath on a variety of occasions by cruel and barbarous [sic] treatment endangered he life and offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intollerable and life burthensome, and thereby forced her to withdraw from his House and Family and altho she was afterwards induced by the most solemn assurances on his part of his repentance and future good conduct, to return to him, she has met with a repetition of insults, indignities, assaults and beatings.”  Petition marked stricken off.  FHL film #1023001, images 138-142 (141).

BANES (also BEANS), Elizabeth v. John.  Petition of Elizabeth Beans (signed Elizabeth Banes), “Wife of John Beans of the Township of Northampton and County of Bucks,” by her next friend Jonathan Shaw, affirmed before a Bucks County Justice of the Peace on 27 April 1791, and again before the Chief Justice on 3 Aug. 1791 and filed the same day (the subpoena gives John’s occupation as mason); grounds: “in the year of our Lord [1765] did willfully and maliciously desert and abandon his Wife and family without any reasonable Cause, that after he had abandoned his Wife and family as aforesaid he went to a place called redstone where he settled and married a woman whose name to your petitioner is unkn[next line:] unknown, by whom he had several Children[,] that he hath lately departed from redstone and to what place he is gone to your petitioner is unknown. That the said John Bean since the abandoning his Wife as aforesaid hath not cohabited with her but hath lived and Cohabited with a woman to your petitioner unknown in Violation of the marriage vow, That the said John Bean hath not at any time since his departure found or provided any thing for her support or maintenance whereby [she] is much agreeved.”  Testimony taken 5 April 1792: Thomas Wilson, who has known Elizabeth since 1749, and John for 26 years, states that Elizabeth was born in Northampton Twp., and during the life of her first husband John RANDAL lived in Southampton Twp., and since then in both townships, that John Banes went first to Baltimore, later heard he was at Ft. Pitt, and is now reportedly near that place, and had two children near Ft. Pitt; Eber Croasdale, who has known John since he was a boy and Elizabeth for at least forty years, states that Elizabeth lived with her father in Northampton Twp. when she first married;  Jonathan Shaw states that Benjamin went to Maryland, then Virginia, then Ft. Pitt.  Divorced 2 Jan. 1792.  FHL film #1023001, images 143-162 (143).

BANGS, Elijah K. v. Mary.  Petition of Elijah K. Bangs of the City of Philadelphia, mariner, sworn to at Philadelphia Co. 12 Dec. and filed 18 Dec. 1804 at #231 Dec. Term 1804 (defendant served 28 Jan. 1805 “Back of Ad^m Snyders in the No[r]thern Liberties”); married District of Southwick 3 Dec. 1799 “Mary Banks his now Wife, then Mary SWEENY”; cohabited until the “month of May last past”; grounds: “the said Mary in violation of her said Vow hath for a Considerable time past given herself up to Adulterous practices and hath committed Adultery with a certain Richard Duffield and now lives with the said Richard Duffield.”  Testimony sworn to 25 Feb. 1807: Richard Tucker (signed with his mark) of the City of Philadelphia aged 28 and upwards, hired as servant to Richard Duffield between May 1805 and spring of 1806; Lear Tucker (signed with her mark) of the City of Philadelphia aged 25 and upwards, stating that “Richard Duffield died about the month of August last.”  Testimony of Henry Spilliard (signed Henry Spillard) of the District of Southwick aged 51 years and upwards taken 17 March 1807.  FHL film #1023001, images 163-189 (166).

BARTRAM, Ann v. James Alexander.  Petition of Ann Bartram, by her next friend James Nicholson, sworn to before the Chief Justice 10 Dec. 1799 and filed the same day (service of subpoena attempted by the Sheriff of Bucks Co. on 13 Feb. 1800 “where defendant used to reside”); married 17 Feb. 1795; cohabited “from that date”; grounds: “that from the month of March in the year aforesaid [i.e., 1795] hath willfully and maliciously deserted and been absent without reasonable cause from your Libellant and yet doth continue and remain absent from her.””  FHL film #1023001, images 190-196 (195).

BAUM, John Christian v. Mary.  Petition of John Christian Baum “Doctor of Physick,” of Exeter Twp., Bucks Co., sworn to 11 July and filed 16 July 1801 (defendant served by the Sheriff of Bucks Co. on 29 July 1801); married [blank] July 1785; cohabited “from that date”; grounds: “the said Mary _ in violation of her marriage vow, hath, for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices, and been guilty of adultery.”  Mary’s answer, dated and sworn to 3 Sept. 1801, gives a marriage date of 12 July 1785, denies adultery, and accuses her husband of committing adultery.  FHL film #1023001, images 197-205 (197).

BEALERT/BEALART, Margaret v. Jacob.  Petition of Margaret Bealart (jurat signed in German script Margretha belert) for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend Joseph Hayhanger of the City of Philadelphia, dated and sworn to at Philadelphia 15 June 1798 and filed the same day; married 18 July 1790; grounds: “the said Jacob Bealart on the second day of March in the year of our Lord [1796] and at divers other days and times Since the said second day of March aforesaid in Violation of his Marriage hath maliciously abandoned his Family and by cruel and Barbarous Treatment endangered the life of your Petitioner and hath offered such Indignities to her Person as to render her Condition intolerable and her life burthensome.”   Petition marked 2^d Libel filed March 1801 N^o 113 [see below].”  FHL film #1023001, images 248-254 (250).

BEALERT, Margaret v. Jacob.  Petition of Margaret Bealert, by her next friend Jonathan Quicksall, dated 16 Feb. and sworn to and filed 20 Feb. 1801 at #113 March Term 1801; married on or about 18 July 1790; cohabited “several years in the township of the Northern Liberties in the County of Philadelphia.  That they had several viz 3 children 2 of whom are still living and maintained by the labour of your petitioner”; grounds: “[t]hat said Jacob Bealert about five years ago wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from your Petitioner without any reasonable cause. That said Jacob Bealert did not leave any estate by means whereof your Petitioner or her children can be sustained: but that he has totally abandoned them. that the hard earnings of your Petitioner since his departure have been seized & sold by his creditors to pay his debts, whereof more remain. & that your Petitioner still continues to maintain said children[,] that your Petitioner is informed that said Jacob is married to another woman & resides in some remote part of the United States”; [appended to petition:] “We the Subscribers having been acquainted with the above named Petitioner and her Family for several years last past are of opinion that the facts above related are founded in truth.  February 10^th 1801 (signed) George Goddard, John Cook, Jesse Oat, Leonard H Heydel, Wm Frautsome[?], Sr., Jacob Edenborn.  Testimony of the following sworn to 25 March 1802: George Goddard of the Northern Liberties, blacksmith, and Jacob Edenborn of the City of Philadelphia, tanner & currier.  Divorced 27 March 1802.  FHL film #1023001, images 228-247 (237).

BEALERT, Mary v. David.  Petition of Mary Bealert, “now residing in the City of Philadelphia, Wife of David Bealert of Middletown in the County of Dauphin & State of Pennsylvania Ropemaker,” by her next friend Jacob Keighler, sworn to before a Supreme Court Judge 17 June 1795 and filed the same day (alias subpoena, giving David’s occupation as bonecutter, served personally by James MacIntire of Upper Merion Co., Montgomery Co., schoolmaster, noting that David “went to the Town of Harrisburg in the County of Dauphin 7 July [1795]”); “[t]hat your Petitioner the said Mary Bealert was born and hath resided since her birth, in the now State of, Pennsylvania”; married on or about 1 Aug. 1768; cohabitation and grounds: “her said Husband lived and cohabited with her until the month of December in the yar [1788]. That he then wilfully and maliciously deserted & absented himself from her without a reasonable Cause and hath continued so to desert & absent himself from her ever since.”  Certificate of Rev. Henry Muhlenberg, protestant minister, states that David Bealert and Mary FULTZ, spinster, both of Philadelphia, were married 5 Aug. 1767.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 5 Dec. 1795: John McDonald of the City of Philadelphia, stonecutter, saw David on 20 Nov. 1795, that “he then and for some before resided on Shelleys Island in the River Delaware Susquehanna about three miles below Middletown”; William Livering of Roxborough Twp., Philadelphia Co., blacksmith, states that the parties were married in the City of Philadelphia and that he signed the marriage certificate with Nathan Livering; Jacob Kinsley (signed Jacob Kingsley) of the City of Philadelphia, shoemaker, taken at Philadelphia 14 Dec. 1795, “knew the said David Bealert & Mary Bealert who then lived in the said City and for two or three years afterwards as man & wife. That they had four Children born of her the said Mary.”  Divorced 18 Dec. 1795.  FHL film #1023001, images 206-227 (211); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), pp. 5-6.

BELLOT, Deborah v. Peter.  Petition of Deborah Bellot of Philadelphia, by her next friend John Goodwin, merchant, dated at Philadelphia 2 Aug., sworn to at Philadelphia 3 Aug. 1796 and filed the same day; married at the City of Philadelphia 13 Dec. 1795; cohabited “from that time untill the lapse of about one month then next ensuing”; grounds: “the said Peter from the [blank] day of January last past hath totally allieniated his affections, from your libellant and given himself up to lewd practices and the having Adulterous Conversation and intercourse with lewd Women and hath lived in open and avowed adultery with divers Women and yet doth continue so to live. From all which it is evident that the said Peter hath been guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken 26 Dec. 1797: Sarah Morris (signed with her mark), “Doctore,” states that she has known Deborah since she was an infant.  Testimony taken 27 Dec. 1797: Anthony Joseph Marinko (signed Antonio Joze Marinko), “a Portuguese,” of Trenton, NJ, and formerly of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, who “lodged at the home of Mrs. MCCULLY, the mother of the Libellant, about two years ago, when he went to Trenton,” states that the parties were married at the home of a clergyman in Pine St., who he believes was Abercrombie.  Divorced 30 Dec. 1799.  FHL film #1023001, images 255-275 (261).

BENDER, Daniel v. Elizabeth.  Petition of Daniel Bender, dated at Philadelphia 5 Nov. 1799, sworn to before a Philadelphia Co. Justice of the Peace 5 Nov. 1799 and filed the same day at #40 Dec. Term 1799; married at the City of Philadelphia 8 June 1794 “a certain Elizabeth ALBRECHT now Elizabeth Bender”; cohabited until the month of Sept. 1799; grounds: “the said Elizabeth from the said Month of September last (from which time she & Libellant have lived seperate & apart from bed & board) long before totally alienated her affections from your Libellant & given herself up to lewd practices & to the having of adulterous convesatins & intercourse with lewd men & more particularly that the said Elizabeth since the said Month of September last hath lived at the City of Philadel^a in open and avowed adultery with a certain James Mahony with whom she has absconded & with whom she yet doth continue to commit adultery, from all which it is evident, That the said Elizabeth hath been guilty of adultery.”  Testimony of the following sworn to 23 Jan. 1800: Sophia Ludwick (signed with her mark), Daniel’s mother, states that James Mahony was a mate on the vessel commanded by Daniel, and lived with Elizabeth as a boarder during her husband’s absence, and that Elizabeth was pregnant when her husband returned; Juliana Buck (signed with her mark); and Jane Adair (signed with her mark).  Testimony of John Hallman, filed 12 March 1800, adds that Elizabeth miscarried.  Divorced 27 March 1800.   FHL film #1023001, images 276-293 (285).

BENNETT, Reuben v. Charlotte.  Petition of Reuben Bennett (signed with his mark), of Philadelphia Co., sworn to 6 July and filed 11 July 1796 at #407 Sept. Term 1796; married at Philadelphia Co. 3 Nov. 1793 “a certain Charlotte BROGDEN”; cohabited until the month of Feb. 1796; grounds: “the said Charlotte — from the said month of february from which time she and your Libellant hath lived separate and apart from bed and board) and long before, totally alienated her affections from your Libellant and [next word careted] had given herself up to lewd practices and to the having of adultrious Conversation and intercourse with lewd men and hath live in the County aforesaid in open and avowed adultry frequenting houses of ill fame and living with an avowed prostitute, from, all of which it is evident the said Charlotte hath been guilty of adultery.”  Testimony taken 30 Nov. 1796: Charles Hobart, of the District of Southwark, Philadelphia Co., leather dresser, aged 50 and upwards, stating that Charles Robinson had pretended that Charlotte was his wife; Thomas Carpenter, of the District of Southwark, constable, who was serving a warrant about 18 months ago at Charlotte’s father for disorderly conduct; and Patrick McNeil, of Southwark District, butler.  Divorced 29/31 Dec. 1796.  FHL film #1023001, images 294-314 (302).

BERNHART, Catherine v. Jacob.  Petition of Catherine Bernhart (signed with her mark) of the Borough and County of York, by her next friend Conrad Lamb, sworn to at York Co. 2 May and filed 20 May 1800 at #154 Sept. Term 1800; married “about seventeen years ago … by a M^r Kuntz, a German clergyman, in the Borough of York”; cohabited “in the Borough of York and its vicinity from the time of their marriage untill some time in the year of our Lord [1792] to the best of your libellant’s recollection when the said Jacob Bernhart without any cause or provocation beat, abused and evilly treated your libellant and took away from her and sold such provisions as your Libellant had provided for the subsistence of the family of the said Jacob and immediately afterwards the said Jacob without any reasonable cause willfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from your Libellant, his dwelling house and family, and never lived with or provided for the subsistence of your Libellant since. That the said Jacob Bernhart continued to live in the said [i.e., York] County tho seperate from your libellant until some time [next two words careted] in January in the year of our Lord [1795] – when the said Jacob went entirely off on this your Libellant has been … has never seen him since nor received the least support or assistance from him”; grounds: “Jacob Bernhart, has without any reasonable cause committed wilfull [sic] and malicous desertion and absences from your libellant for more than four years last past.”  Testimony of the following taken at the house of George Hay in the Borough of York on 14 Sept. 1801: Mr. Ignatius Lightner (signed Ignatius Leitner), aged about 40 years, of the Borough of York, states that the parties were married in 1783 “or thereabouts at the Borough of York, by the Rev. Nicholas Kuntz, a Lutheran Minister,” that “they had several children after the marriage,” that Jacob deserted sometime in 1795, and never returned, and that he did not know where Jacob was but heard he went to Virginia; John Glessner of the Borough of York, aged about 33, states that Jacob went to Shepherdstown, VA, but does not know where he is now.  Divorced 8 Sept. 1801.  FHL film #1023001, images 315-336 (330); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), pp. 82-83.

BICKERTON, Ann v. James.  Petition of Ann Bickerton of the City of Philadelphia for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Hamstead Mason (signed Hamsted Mason), sworn to in open Supreme Court 14 Dec. and filed 17 Dec. 1802 at #4 March 1803; married at Philadelphia 5 Oct. 1799; cohabited “since that time”; grounds: “the said James by his repeated and almost continual act of intoxication and brutality toward her the said [next work careted] Ann and by repeatedly beating and abusing her the said Ann has endangered her life and made it a burthen to her and has offered such indignities to her person as kept her made it impossible she should live or cohabit with him.”  Petition marked “Ended before Court,” and on the subpoena, “this Action ended.”  FHL film #1023001, images 337-341 (339).

BIEVER, John v. Catharine.  Petition of John Biever, yeoman, who “was born in the County of Bucks in this State, where he lived, until about sixteen years ago, when moved into the County of Berks, where he has ever since resided,” dated at Berks County 10 June 1802, sworn to the same day, and filed 16 July 1802 at #276 Sept. Term 1802 (copy of subpoena left by Daniel Yoder [signing in German script] of Rockland Twp., farmer, on 4 Aug. 1802 “at the place of her usual and last abode … at the house of Jacob Angstad in Rockland Twp.); married 15 Sept. 1790 Catharine FOLK; grounds: “the said Catharine on or about the said [20 Nov. 1791], went with her father into the State of Maryland.”  FHL film #1023001, images 342-347 (345).

BIRD, William v. Mary.  Petition of William Bird of the City of Philadelphia dated at Philadelphia 28 July, sworn to before the Chief Justice the same day, and filed 29 July 1794; married on or about 23 June 1786; grounds: “the s^d Mary from [next five words careted] the month of April in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty ninety in violation of her marriage vows hath alienated her affections from your Libellant and given herself up to lewd practices and hath withdrawn herself from the house in which they lived and wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented herself from your Petition without any reasonable cause and hath ever since continued so to do.”  Petition marked “Struck off the Docqt.”  FHL film #1023001, images 348-350 (348).

BISHOPBERGER, Elizabeth v. Jacob, the younger (elsewhere, Jr.).  Petition of Elizabeth Bishopberger (signed with her mark), by her next fried Jacob Bishopberger, Sr., of the City of Philadelphia, sworn to at Philadelphia [blank] Sept. and read 9 Sept. 1795, with subpoena allowed 25 Sept. 1795; married 29 April 1783; cohabited until the year 1789; grounds: “the said Jacob Bishop Berger the Younger on [23 Oct. 1794] knowingly entered into a second marriage in violation of his Marriage vow to your Petitioner. Whose Marriage at that Time was & still is subsisting.”  Marriage record of the German Reformed Congregation of the City of Philadelphia, certified by William Handel, minister, at Philadelphia 17 March 1795, indicates that Jacob Bishopberger and Elizabeth TSCHUDY, “both of this City,” were married 29 April 1783.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 23 March 1796: John Dixon (signed John Dickson), keeper of the debtors’s apartment of the prison of the City of Philadelphia, where the defendant “has been confined for some time,” and of Christian Hubbard (signed Christian Hubbert), stating that the defendant was married by John McIntire, minister in Salem Co., NJ, to Elizabeth Sanders.  Divorced 21 March 1796.  FHL film #1023001, images 351-367 (355).

BLACK, Elizabeth v. James, late of Philadelphia Co.  Petition of Elizabeth Black for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her father and next friend Frederick Shingle (signing in German script), signed and sworn to at Philadelphia 2 March 1791 and filed the same day (defendant, who “lives at the Sign of the Owls(?) Head in Strawberry Alley,” served personally); married on or about 6 Jan. 1786, “and hath lived and cohabited with him the said James”; grounds: “the said James Black, for the first day of June in the year of our Lord [1786] and at divers days and time since that day in violation of his marriage vow, hath maliciously abandoned his family and hath [next word careted] frequently turned his Wife your Petitioner out of Doors, and by cruel and barbarous treatment hath endangered her life, and hath offered such indignities to [interlined word]her person as to render her condition intolerable, and her life burthensome, and hath thereby forced her to withdraw from him and hath neglected and refused to provide for the necessary subsistence of your Petitioner.”  Testimony of the following, all of the City of Philadelphia, taken there in Sept. 1791: Catharine Graff (signed with her mark), widow, has known Elizabeth almost since birth; Mary Graff, wife of Jacob, “the Libellant is her own sister,” sworn to 1 Sept.; John Scott, Innkeeper, who became acquainted with the parties in Willistown Twp., Chester Co., sworn to 2 Sept.; Jacob Graff, pencil-maker, mentions brother-in-law and Elizabeth’s brother Frederick Shingle, sworn to 4 Sept.; Henry Graff, currier, “Libellant is wife to his brother,” sworn to 4 Sept.; John Springer (signed with his mark), Breeches maker, sworn to 5 Sept.; and Margaret Davis, wife of Samuel, Innkeeper, sworn to 12 Sept.].  Divorced from bed & board 5 Sept. 1791.  FHL film #1023001, images 368-393 (391).

BLACK, Jane v. John.  Petition of Jane Black, feme covert of Northumberland Co., by her next friend James Hepburn, sworn to in Northumberland Co. 4 Sept. 1794 and filed 26 Sept. 1794 at Jan. Term 1795; married “heretofore”; grounds: “the said John Black hath committed adultery with a certain Isabella Ray in the County of Northumberland, and eloped from the Bed and Board of your Petitioner in company with the said adultress Isabella Ray, and wilfully and maliciously deserted, and absconded himself from your Petitioner.”  Marked “Dissmd.”[?]  FHL film #1023001, images 394-395 (394).

BLACK, Mary v. Anthony.  Petition of Mary Black, by her next friend Henry Lechler, Jr., signed and sworn to in Cumberland Co. 14 Jan. and filed 27 Jan. 1802 at #82 March Term 1802 (served by proclamation & publication as returned 6 Sept. 1802; Anthony’s last place of abode having been in the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland Co., according to the subpoena); married 16 Feb. 1789; cohabited until 4 Dec. 1794; grounds: “Anthony from fourth day of December in the year of our Lord [1794] hath willfully and maliciously absented himself from her the said Mary, and such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four years and upwards without any just reason or cause, and yet doth continue to absent himself from her the said Mary.”  Testimony taken in Cumberland Co. on 4 Sept. 1802: Abraham Loughroge (signed Abrm. Loughridge) of the Borough of Carlisle, merchant, states that he was acquainted with the parties through intermarriage and was present at their wedding in York Co., that they had cohabited “Four years and upwards in which time they had three Children born,” that “It was reported that he took a woman with him from one Fergusons near Mount Rock about six miles west of Carlisle,” that he went to Virginia in the fall of 1794 but does not know his whereabouts now, and that Mary has resided in “Carlisle with her mother ever since the said Anthony left her.”  Divorced 18 Sept. 1802.  FHL film #1023001, images 396-411 (400); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Cumberland County Pennsylvania Divorces, 1789-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1994), pp. 7-8, and at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), p. 87.

BLAKENEY, Mary Ann v. Gabriel.  Petition of Mary Ann Blakeney “late Mary Ann HUGHES, daughter of John Hughes,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend John Hughes, signed and sworn to in Washington Co. 28 July 1797 and filed the same day at #620 Sept. Term 1797; married 19 Nov. 1789; cohabited until 12 April 1795; grounds: “that during the time said Mary Ann lived with the aforesaid Gabriel, her husband, he the said Gabriel did frequently treat her the said Mary Ann in a very cruel and barbarous manner, and by the unreasonably cruel and barbarous abuse, wounding and beating, which she the said Mary Ann, received from the hands of him the aforesaid Gabriel, the life of her the said Mary Ann, was greatly indangered: That during the time which she the said Mary Ann, did live with the aforesaid Gabriel her husband, that is to say from the nineteenth day of November in the year of our Lord [1789], untill the twelvth day of April in the year of our Lord [1795], he the said Gabriel did offer such indignities, to the person of her the said Mary Ann as to render her condition intolerable and her life burthensome, That on the twelvth day of April in the year of our Lord [1795], the aforesaid Gabriel, willfully and maliciously, did turn (her the said Mary Ann, then and there being his wife and living with him,) out of doors, and hath ever since the time of turning her the said Mary Ann, out of doors, refused to receive her into his house, altho she the said Mary Ann, hath frequently desired him the aforesaid Gabriel, to receive her the said Mary Ann into his house. And the said Gabriel hath altogether abandoned her the said Mary Ann his lawful wife, and hath refused and still doth refuse to supply her with the nec[e]ssaries of life or provide for her maintenance and support, whereby she the said Mary Ann, is brought to great straits and difficulties.”  Petition marked “Dismissed.”  FHL film #1023001, images 415-419 (415).

BLAKENEY, Gabriel v. Mary Anne.  Petition of Gabriel Blakeny (signed Gabriel Blakeney), of Washington Co., sworn to in Washington Co. 11 July and filed 28 July 1797; [date and place of marriage and cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That Mary Anne Blakeny the wife of him the said Gabriel, hath been guilty of criminal conversation and committed adultery with a certain William M^cCluney & a certain Andrew M^cClure and others, late of the said County of Washington so that he the said Gabriel is injured.”  Divorced 11 May 1798 following a trial.  FHL film #1023001, images 412-414, 420-424 (420).

BLANEY, Ann v. Edward.  Petition of Ann Blaney (signed ann Blany) for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend John Thompson Hughs of the City of Philadelphia, signed and sworn to at Philadelphia 11 Dec. and filed 13 Dec. 1797 at #2 March Term 1798 (served personally); married 4 May 1797; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Edward Blaney on the fifteenth day of June – in the year of our Lord [1797] and at divers other days and times Since the said fifteen day of June Aforesaid in violation of his marriage vow hath Maliciously abandoned his family and by cruel and barbarous treatment endangered the life of your petitioner and hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome.”  Testimony sworn to 2 Dec. 1798: Lewis Garranger (signed Lewis Garanger).  Testimony sworn to 20 Dec. 1798: Rachel Eaton (signed with her mark), states that she has known Ann “since she was an infant.”  Testimony sworn to 22 Dec. 1798: Sarah Durang, “the mother of the Complainant.”  Divorced 27 Dec. 1798.  FHL film #1023001, images 425-443 (430).

BOCKIUS, Elizabeth v. Peter.  Petition of Elizabeth Bockius (signed with her mark), by her next friend Charles William Nushay, of the City of Philadelphia, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice at Philadelphia 29 Jan. 1796 and filed the same day; married 24 April 1785; cohabited “from that time” until 15 June 1789; grounds: “the said Peter Bockius from the Fifteenth day of June [1789] did wholly neglect to Provide for his Wife Elizabeth Bockius aforesaid and family, and that the said Peter did in violation of his marriage Vow at Baltimore on the First day of April [1795] intermarry with a certain Sarah Kups[?], and has since contracted marriage with some other [interlined word; next word careted] woman at Boston as your Petitioner [next word careted] is informed, and that the said Peter Bockius since his marriage with your petitioner has committed Adultery with divers Persons and that the said Peter hath barbarously treated your Petitioner, and hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burthensome.” Petition marked “not to be brought forw^d Jan^y 1800.”  FHL film #1023001, images 449-451 (449).

BOEHM, Charlotte v. Christian Gotlieb.  Petition of Charlotte Bahm/Bahme (jurat signed with the mark of Charlotte Böhm), by her next friend John Banks, of the City of Philadelphia, for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, sworn to before a Justice of the Peace for the City of Philadelphia 5 Dec. 1800 and filed that day at #1 March Term 1801; married 10 Dec. 1795; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Christian Gotlieb Bahme on the second day of December in the year of our Lord [1800] and at divers other times before and since that time in violation of his marriage vow hath maliciously turned his wife your Petitioner out of Doors and by cruel and barbarous treatment hath endangered her life and hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burthensome.”  FHL film #1023001, images 133-137 (136).

BOEHM, Mary v. John.  Petition of Mary Boehm (signed, perhaps in German script, maria b—[?]), “the wife of John Boehm of Douglas township Montgomery County,” by her next friend Andrew Reid, sworn to before the Chief Justice 20 May 1794 and filed the same day (served personally); married “about eight years ago … by whom she hath had one child now living”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said John Boehm for about four years past hath addicted himself to drinking and bad practices, hath neglected his wife and family, and hath treated your petitioner with outrageous and repeated acts of cruelty and barbarity so as to render her condition intolerable and her life absolutely burthensome hath compelled her for upwards of one year past to leave her home taking with her the child abovesaid, and hath refused to contribute to her support.”  Petition marked “March 95 abated by Death of Def[endan]^t | pa[ge]. 295.”  FHL film #1023001, images 444-448 (444).

BOLTON, Joseph v. Esther.  Petition of Joseph Bolton (signed with his mark) sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice at Philadelphia 5 July 1796 and filed that day at #385 Sept. Term 1796; married 24 March 1795 Esther JAMES; cohabited “from that time until the Month of December [1795]”; grounds: “the said Esther not regarding her Marriage vow, and in violation thereof hath committed Adultery with a certain Nicholas Miller, with whom she has lived for a long space of time in Habits of Intimacy, which your Petitioner believes to have been adulterous. Your Petitioner further represents to your Honours, that the Crime of Adultery with which your Petitioner charges his Said Wife was committed, as he verily believes within this State, and that She fled before conviction, without the Jurisdiction thereof.”  Petition marked “St[ruc]k off D[ocke]^t 98.”  FHL film #1023001, images 452-457 (454).

BOOR, William v. Mary.  Petition of William Boor, of East Pennsboro Twp., Cumberland Co., signed and sworn to 1 June 1789, and apparently filed that day, when a subpoena was allowed (served by proclamation & publication 2 Jan. 1790); married “a certain Mary BOHER” on or about 19 April 1779; cohabited “untill the Fifth day of April in the Year of our Lord [1789]”; grounds: “She then eloped from your Petitioner with a certain Charles Wingler and has lived Since that Period in a State of Adultery with the said Charles Wingler. That Your Petitioner’s said Wife is now residing in the District of Kentucky, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, out of the Jurisdiction of the Hon^ble Supreme Court of this Commonwealth with the said Charles Wingler.”  Petition marked “St[ruc]k off Docqt. [17]94 pa[ge] 108.”  FHL film #1023001, images 458-467 (464); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Cumberland County Pennsylvania Divorces, 1789-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1994), pp. 2-3.

BOSLER [BOSSLER], Sarah v. Henry, late of Allen Twp., Cumberland Co. (yeoman, according to the subpoena).  Petition of Sarah Bosler, by her father and next friend John Garber, affirmed and filed 1 June 1789 (served by publication); married “about the Month of December [1781[, & has had Issue by him two children”; [period of cohabitation otherwise not stated]; grounds: “the said Henry hath committed wilful & malicious Desertion and Absence from her the said Sarah [next three words careted] without reasonable cause from the Month of December [1784] or thereabouts, since which Period she the said Sarah hath not seen him save in one Instance (in or about the Month of September following, when the said Henry continued about two Hours at her Father’s House without cohabitation or further connection with the Sarah) when the said Sarah was informed by the said Henry that unless her Father the said John Garber would give the said Henry a Sum of Money she should never see him again: That the said Henry hath never made any Provision whatever for the said Sarah or their Children but she the said Sarah & the said Children have been maintained by her Father aforesaid; And that during their Intermarriage aforesaid they the said Henry & Sarah have not lived together as Man & Wife above twelve months, including the whole Time.”  Testimony taken at Carlisle and affirmed 22 April 1790: John Garber, of West Pennsboro Twp., Cumberland Co., yeoman, states that the marriage was at his house in Paxton Twp.; Mary Graber, wife of John, states that the couple were married by Rev. Mr. Handel, now of Lancaster, and that she “understood that the said Henry Bosler lived in Georgia where it is reported he is married to a Widow.”  Divorced 2 Jan. 1790.  FHL film #1023001, images 468-486 (477).  abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Cumberland County Pennsylvania Divorces, 1789-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1994), pp. 1-2; also in Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), pp. 1-2; see also Thomas L. Yoset, “Resident Veterans of the Revolutionary War (John Garber),” Crawford County Genealogy [CCG], 21 (Feb. 1998):34-36; William B. Moore, “The Descendants of John and Mary Garber,” CCG 25(Spring/Summer 2002):56.

BOURGEOIS (BOURGIOIS on alias subpoena), Mary Dinah v. Francis.  Petition of Mary Dinah Bourgeois, by her next friend William Priestman, sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 21 Aug. 1805 and filed (2 Sept. when subpoena issued?) at #34 Dec. Term 1805; married 31 March 1798; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “that the said Francis Bourgeois in Violation of his Marriage Vow hath for a considerable time past given himself up Adulterous practices and been guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony: Thomas Goodwin, of the City of Philadelphia aged 40 and upwards, affirmed 3 July 1807; and John Lawson, of the City of Philadelphia aged 56 and upwards, sworn to 21 Aug. 1807, who saw Francis at Havanna, Cuba, in Jan. 1815, “He at that time lived and cohabited with a woman of colour, by whom he told the deponent he had a child, [and] that the child was an infant, but a few months old, … [that Francis] deserted the Libellant some time in [1803] … that he went from Philadelpia the place of his residence to Charleston, and from there to Havannah.”  “Dec 14 [or 17?] Divorce pron[ounce]d.”  FHL film #1023001, images 487-501 (490).

BOYD, Sarah v. James.  Petition of Sarah Boyd of East Whiteland Twp., Chester Twp., for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Thomas Hughes, sworn to at Philadelphia 12 July 1799 and filed the same day at #248 Sept. Term 1799; married on or about 8 May 1793; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said James Boyd without a reasonable cause, hath treated her cruelly & barbarously and hath offered her such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable, & life burthensome and thereby forced her to withdraw from his house & family.”  FHL film #1023001, images 502-506 (504).

BRAUER/BROWER, Susanna v. Jacob.  Petition of Susanna Brauer (signed with her mark, but not sworn to or affirmed) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Henry Rhoades (signing in German script Heinrich Rosch[?]), filed 27 April 1786 (Jacob is of Chester Co., yeoman, according to the subpoena); married in Oct. 1773; cohabited until “autumn of the last year”; grounds: “That the said Jacob, having shaken off all regard to his conjugal vows, instead of behaving himself with that tenderness & humanity which becometh a husband has been a tyrant & tormentor to his said spouse & ss[?] cruelly beat & maltreated her, that She the said Complainant considering herself in danger of her life, was obliged [interlined word; two words careted:] last fall to seperate herself from her said husband, but shortly after upon the interference of their mutual friends, & the promises of the said Jacob, they again cohabited together; but since the said time, the said Jacob hath treatd the said Complainant with much greater cruelty & also her children, that he hath frequently assaulted & beaten her without any cause & hath often threatened her life, & in particular hath several times taken a large club to bed declaring he would beat out her brains, whereby the said Complaint fearing for her life hath been obliged to leave her said husband who refuses to support her or her children in any manner.”  Certification of John Ralston, dated 30 Jan. 1790, that Jacob Brauer had appeared before him on 11 Jan. concerning maintenance awarded Susanna by the Supreme Court.  FHL film #1023001, images 507-513 (509).

BRICE, John v. Sarah.  Petition of John Brice (of Philadelphia Co., mariner, according to the subpoena), dated 12 Dec., sworn to at Philadelphia 13 Dec. 1785 and filed the same day; married “Sarah then called Sarah BERNARD, 26 Nov. 1774 “by the Reverend M^r George Duffield”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Sarah hath in repeated Instances been guilty of Infidelity hath violated her Marriage Vow and hath committed Adultery.”  Divorced certified 29 Sept. 1786.  FHL film #1023001, images 514-520 (516).

BRIEN, Mary Ann v. Peter.  Petition of Mary Ann Brien, by her next friend Ebenzer Ferguson, Esq., sworn to 10 March 1813 before John Barker, Mayor, “15 March 1813 read and subpœna awarded,” and filed at #46 March Term 1813; married “about nine years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “by cruel and barbarous treatment towards your Petitioner, rendered her condition intolerable, and her life burthensome, and thereby forced her to withdraw from his house and family.”  FHL film #1023001, images 526-529 (528).

BRIEN, Mary Ann, v. Peter.  Petition of Mary Ann Brien, “wife of Peter Brien of the County of Philadelphia Mariner,” for divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Joseph Snyder, dated at Philadelphia 5 April 1815 [no jurat], and subpoena issued that day; [date and place of marriage and period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: he “has by cruel and barbarous treatment endangered her life and offered such indignities to her person in many instances as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome and thereby forced her to withdraw from his house and family.”  FHL film #1023001, images 521-525 (524).

BRIGGS, Dorothy v. John.  Petition of Dorothy Briggs of the City of Philadelphia, by her next friend Joseph Harvey, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 3 Nov. 1800 and filed that day at #100 Dec. Term 1800; married in Aug. 1781; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said John unmindful of his Marriage Vow and in violation of the duties thereby enjoined hath at divers times since the Celebration of the said Marriage, committed Adultery with several lewd Women whose names are at present unknown to your Libellant but which when discovered she prays may be added to and made a part of this Bill.”  Defendant’s motion to continue the case to the next term of court, dated and filed 16 March 1801, because he is in the Philadelphia prison and thus cannot attend.  FHL film #1023001, images 530-541 (540).

BRITTON, William v. Catharine.  Petition of William Britton, “a Minor under the Age of twenty,” by his father and next friend John Britton, signed at Philadelphia 28 Feb. 1797 and sworn to before a Supreme Court justice 1 March 1797 and filed that day; married by Rev. Nicholas Colin on or about 23 Sept. 1794 to Catharine, “before that time named Catharine SMITH”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Catherine hath repeatedly committed Adultery with a certain Garret Burns, & others in violation of her Duty & Marriage Vows, and that the said Catherine is the Companion of dissolute & debauched persons, and lives frequently in lewd houses.”  Testimony: Jemima Brown of Philadelphia Co., housekeeper, wife of Christian Brown, mariner, taken at Philadelphia 17 Dec. 1797, that she “once lived near the house of the Father of the Libellant in the North Liberties,” and that “Garret Burns now lives with the Defendant at the Deponent’s house”; Harriet Newtown, of Shippen St., Philadelphia, housekeeper, taken on 18 Dec. 1797 (signed with her mark), that the Defendant hired a room from her, and “at the expiration of the two weeks, the Defendant became well enough to remove, and went to her family in Burlington [N.J.]”; and Hester Jones, “a free negroe woman, servant of the above named Harriet Newton, taken at Philadelphia 19 Dec. 1797 (signed with her mark), that about a year ago, “the Defendant kept a House near Swedes Church in Southwest,” where Garret Burns was frequently.  Divorced 20 Dec. 1797.  FHL film #1023001, images 542-557 (555).

BROWN, Catherine v. Joseph.  Petition of Catherine Brown (signed Hetty Brown), by her next friend John Tedford, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice [undated] and filed 16 March 1802 at #1 Sept. Term 1802 (defendant served personally between 2 and 3 Street in [Center City, Philadelphia?]); married Philadelphia Co. 18 Dec. 1794, and “[t]hat at the time of the Said Marriage the Said Joseph carried on Business in Philadelphia as a Shoemaker, that after keeping House for 3 months immediately succeeding the marriage in Philad- [next line] the said Joseph removed with your Petitioner to Newark in New Jersey, that after a residence of 18 months in Newark the said Joseph removed back to Philad^a that after a stay of 11 months in Philade^a he returned to NewArk & Staid there 2 years & an half from whence they removed to Philad^a into Willings Alley from whence after a stay of 6 months he removed into Catherine Street – That during this period of so unfixed & wandering a disposition was the Said Husband that he has frequently threatened repeatedly prepared to abandon your petioner [sic] to settle as he declared in Baltimore, New York or Canada. ¶ That in [next three words careted] the Month of April 1801 this petitioner spent Ten days in Lancaster during which Time the said Joseph Completely neglected his family affairs and at this period became acquainted with a certain Abby Bennett who is well known to be a common Prostitute About the Month of September in the same year (1801) the said Joseph became incapable of performing his Business & confined to his bed with a disorder that soon turned out to be the Venereal Disease. That in consequence of this Petitioner’s connection with the said Joseph previous to her knowledge of his disorder She herself became infected with that disease, took sick was confined to her Bed and under the care & prescettions[?] of a Physician (Dr Grimes) for [blank] weeks, That tho. She has at this time in some degree recovered her Health is yet feeble And her Constitutions she fears materially injured  That at the time this petitioner recieved this disease from the said Joseph she was suckling his child which child is now very sick & she fears will die in Consequence of his not acquainting her with the true nature of his Complaint.”  Testimony taken 20 Nov. 1802: Dr. Hugh Graham.  Divorced 1 Jan. 1803 (entered Vol 2:53).  FHL film #1023001, images 558-569 (558).

BROWN, Charlotte v. John.  Petition of Charlotte Brown “of the City of Philadelphia wife of John Brown of the same City,” by her next friend John Dyke, for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 31 May 1798 and filed that day at #218 Sept. Term 1798 (served by proclamation); married 29 June “now last passed”; grounds: “he repeatedly between that time and sometime in the month of november in the same year offered such Indignities to her person as to render her condition intollerable and life burthensome and then maliciously abandoned her and hath [next word careted] ever sinse continued to absent himself from her and refused to live with her and hath also also refused to find or provide any support or maintenance or place of habitation for her.”  Testimony sworn to 4 Sept. 1799: Mary Leo states that marriage was at the house of her husband [unnamed], “who is since dead.”  FHL film #1023001, images 570-581 (579).

BROWN, Johanna v. William.  Petition of Johanna Brown (signed with her mark) of Northern Liberties Twp., by her next friend Richard Whitehead, dated and sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 17 April and filed 18 April 1800 at #56 Sept. Term 1800; married William Brown, shipwright, inhabitant of Northern Liberties Twp., “many years ago”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said William hath of late years especially behaved himself towards your Petitioner in the most indelicate & improper manner and hath willfully and maliciously absented himself from her and deserted her for and during the term and space of four years and upwards.”  Testimony taken 6 Sept. 1800: Abiah Brown of the City of Philadelphia, who was in partnership with William, that William and Hannah Pope “lived in the same house, slept in the same bed, and had children”; William Giles (affirmed); and William Cathart, “that in the year 1798 the respondent lived with a woman named Hannah Pope by whom he had a child, which he acknowleged to be his.”  Divorced 8 Sept. 1800.  FHL film 1023001, images 582-600 (592).

BROWN, Mary v. William.  Petition [missing] of Mary Brown for divorce a from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Mathew Thompson, filed on or before 26 Jan. 1793 when a subpoena was allowed, directed to William Brown, of Carlisle, Cumberland Co.  FHL film #1023001, images 601-604.

BROWN, Mary Flinn v. Jacob.  Petition of Mary Flinn Brown (signed Mary Brown) of the City of Philadelphia, by her next friend John Cross, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice at Philadelphia [date not stated] and filed 12 Nov. 1801 at #140 Dec. Term 1801; married 29 April 1788; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Jacob Brown on the twenty second of December in the year of our Lord [1798] and at divers other times since, the said Jacob Brown aforesaid in violation of his Mariage [sic] vow hath maliciously abandoned his Family and hath turned his Wife your Petitioner out of Doors and by cruel and barbarous treatment hath endangered her Life, And hath offered such indignities to her Person as to render her condition intolerable and her Life burthensome, He the said Jacob Brown has likewise committed adultery and has joined himself in marriage with another [unnamed] Woman.”  FHL film #1023001, images 605-609 (607).

BRUGH, John v. Catharina.  Petition of John Brugh (signed in German script Johannes Brügh[?]) of Franklin Twp., York Co., affirmed 27 March 1790 before a York County Common Pleas Judge and filed the same day at #14 Sept. Term 1790 (defendant served by copy at the house of Abraham Swigert in Berkwick Twp., York Co.); “That about Twenty four years ago your Libellant was lawfully joined in Marriage by a German Clergyman in the Borough of York to a certain Catharina SWEIGART, at which time he lived in Paradise Township in said County, in a rented house. That in about two years after his Marriage, your Libellant purchased a small Farm, in Warrington Township, in said County, and soon after went with his Wife to reside on it. ¶ That your Libellant and his Wife continued to live there about six years, and as his farm was small, and insufficient to maintain his Family, he then sold it. That your Libellant being encouraged by the offer of a Lease, on very advantageous terms, of a valuable farm near Hagerstown in Maryland, he Removed there but after using every entreaty, he could not prevail on his Wife to Accompany him. That your Libellant after continuing on said farm near Hagerstown for about seven Months, and finding all his endeavors to prevail with his Wife to come and live with him there, were ineffectual, he removed back into York County, and purchased a Mill and farm in Strabane township in said County, and there again applied to the said Catharina his Wife to come and live with him, which she still peremptorily refused, and in a short time afterwards, she the said Catharine removed to the Town of Baltimore, where she has continued ever since ¶ That from the time of your Libellants Marriage, while the said Catharina continued to live with him, he treated and used her with the utmost Humanity, and Tenderness, and Notwithstanding thereof, and of his repeated, and urgent Applications to her, previous to her removal to Baltimore, she still refused to return to live with him, and has now willfully and Maliciously deserted him for about sixteen years. ¶ That the said Catharina wife of the Libellant, has since she separated from him and went to Reside in the Town of Baltimore has been repeatedly guilty of Adultery, and has had two Children in Adultery, begat one born in the said Town of Baltimore.”  FHL film #1023001, images 610-617 (612), 621-622; abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), p. 79.

BRUGH, John v. Catharina.  Petition of John Brugh, who “now resides in and is an Inhabitant of York County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” affirmed before a York Co. Justice of the Peace 23 Feb. 1792, and read 28 Feb. 1792; married Catherine SWIGERT “about Eighteen years ago”; cohabited “for nine years and upwards during which they had born unto them three Children”; grounds: “That the said Catharine not at all regarding her marriage vow has absented herself from your Petitioner^s Bed and Board and from her Children for nearly nine years last past. That she has lived in State of Prostitution and Adultery [next five words careted] in the State of Maryland since her departure That within the last five years She has had born of her Body two Bastard Children. That She has sworn that a married man in Baltimore (to which place she fled and where she now is) is the Father of one of the last mentioned Children.”  Noted on the cover of the petition: “not to be brought forw[ar]^d Sep[t. 17]95. | pa. 114.”  FHL film 1023001, images 618-620 (618).

BRYANT, Lucy v. Prince.  Petition of Lucy Bryant, “wife of Prince Bryant, late of Wallenpapeck Settlement in the County of Northampton,” by her father and next friend John Ansley, sworn to at Easton 12 Nov. and filed 15 Dec. 1795 at #40 Dec. Term 1795 (copy of subpoena left at Chesterfield “in the County of Stamphur[?],” his last place of abode, and alias subpoena at the house of John Ansley, Jr., in Lackawanna Twp., in Northampton Co.); married “about seventeen years ago, … by whom she has now living six children”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That since the said intermarriage, your Petitioner has at different times, suffered the most inhuman personal abuse from her said husband. That without any provocation on her part, or any reasonable cause whatever, her said husband for five years last past has willfully & maliciously deserted, and absented himself from your Petitioner, during which [next word careted] time he has in no wise contributed any thing to the support either of her or his children. That in addition to the cruelty of thus leaving her to her own labour for the support of herself & children, he has at different times by violence taken from her most valuable articles of Household goods and clothing, & what little money the charity of her friends or her own industry had procured her.”  Testimony taken 27 Jan. 1797: Simeon Ensley (signed Simeon Ansley) of Wallenpapeck Settlement; and Ephraim Kimball, of Wallenpapeck Settlement, with whom Lucy has made her home since September 1792.  Divorced 21 March 1797.  FHL film #1023001, images 623-639 (635).

BUNTING, William v. Agnes.  Petition of William Bunting of Chester Co., cordwainer, a Pennsylvania resident “for many years previous to filing this Petition,” sworn to 10 Sept. 1795 before a [Chester Co.?] Justice of the Peace and filed 2 Jan. 1796; married 19 [or 17?] Oct. 1790 Agnes “late Agnes TAYLOR”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Agnes without a reasonable cause, hath wilfully and maliciously deserted your Petitioner & absented herself from him for and during the space of four years and upwards and that she hath, knowingly, entered into a second marriage in violation of the previous vow she made to your Petitioner her husband.”  FHL film #1023001, images 640-643 (642).

BURK, Mary v. William.  Petition of Mary Burk, “Wife of William Burk of the City of Philadelphia, Taylor,” for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend John Jones, sworn to 20 Feb. and filed 5[?] March 1797; married 4 July 1795; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “he hath nevertheless by beating and other cruel and barbarous treatment offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intollerable [sic] and life burthensome, and hath finally abandoned his family, consisting of your Petitioner and of the infant child of her said husband.” Defendant’s answer, dated and filed 29 March 1797, denies the allegations, and offers to cohabit with her and “to treat her in a kind & affectionate manner, comfortably.”  FHL film 1023001, images 654-658 (654); see next entry for divorce.

BURK, Mary v. William.”  Petition of Mary Burk “of the City of Philadelphia Wife of William Burk of the same place,” for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony, by her next friend John Jones, sworn to before the Chief Justice 22 July 1797 and filed the same day at #578 Sept. Term 1797; married in July 1795; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said William unmindful of his Marriage Vow and in violation of the duties thereby imposed hath at divers times since the celebration of the said marriage, committed adultery with several lewd women, whose names are at present unknown to your Libellant, but which when discovered she prays may be added to and made a part of this her Bill.”  Testimony taken 12 Dec. 1797: Alexander Ramsay, of the City of Philadelphia, house carpenter, states that “the Libellant now teaches the Girl free school in the University for a livelihood,” and has a female child.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia (date illegible): Griffith Jones of the City of Philadelphia, innkeeper.  Testimony sworn to 29 May 1798: Ephraim Dane, of Coharsy, N.J., tailor, states that the couple resided at the corner of 4th & Arch Streets, Philadelphia.  Divorced 29 Dec. 1798.  FHL film 1023001, images 644-651, 657 (649).

BURKHART, Barbara v. Jacob, yeoman.  Petition of Barbara Burkhart (signed with her mark) for alimony dated at Philadelphia 27 Sept. and filed 28 Sept. 1785; [marriage date and place not stated]; grounds: “That your Petitioners s^d Husband after living with her in Peace and Comfort for more than twenty years, during which time by their joint Industry, they had acquired considerable Property, hath for the space of between two and three years past attached himself to another woman with whom he lives and hath beaten your Petitioner cruelly, deserted and abandoned her to want. ¶ That lately your Petitioner’s said Husband undertook to supply her with certain household Goods and made a Deed of a House in Trust to her use, but lately [next word careted] since when she was sick he forcibly took away the said Goods, not excepting the Bed she lay upon and her Deeds, being lodged in the Hands of the Overseers of the Poor, were by the said Overseers delivered up, and she fears, the Deed which was made for her use, destroyed ¶ That your Petitioner lives, and for two Years past has lived apart from her said Husband and is now destitute, and her said Husband wholly refuses to recieve [sic] her as his wife or provide for her.”  Jacob’s answer filed Oct. 1785 asserts that he never beat or deserted or abandoned Barbara and had offered to be reconciled and she refused, that they agreed to separate and mutually chose to determine her allowance, that he is employed in the business of fence making, and has maintained her father [unnamed] for more than 12 years.  FHL film #1023001, images 669-677 (675).

BURNET, Samuel v. Jane.  Petition of Samuel Burnet, dated and sworn to at Philadelphia 28 May 1796 and filed the same day at #185 Sept. Term 1796; married “a certain Jane PERRY about nine years ago, with whom until lately he has lived”; grounds: “the said Jane has been guilty of Adultery with a certain John Hylliard Bamfield, otherwise John Hilliard, with whom also She has lately eloped, & lives in open Adultery with.”  Petition marked “not to be brought forward in [17]99 vide [i.e., see] N^o 185 Sep [17]96.”  FHL film #1023001, images 678-680 (678).

BURNHETER/BURNHEATER, John v. Margaret.  Petition of John Burnheater (signed John Burnheter) of Philadelphia Co., sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 28 July 1798 and filed that day at #398 Sept. Term 1795; married in Nov. 1786 “to a certain Margaret FRIED”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the s^d Margaret unmindful of her marriage vow and the duties thereby imposed hath since her intermarriage with your Libellant committed adultery with and and had a bastard child by a certain person whose name is to your Libellant unknown.”  Petition marked “Struck off Docqt. 1800 pa[ge] 224.”  FHL film #1023001, images 681-685 (683).

BURNS, Sarah v. James.  Petition of Sarah Burns (signed Sarah Byrnes or Burns), by her next friend Thomas Aimes (signed Thomas Amies), sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 28 Dec. and filed 30 Dec. 1802 at ##294 Dec. Term 1802 and 67 March Term 1803; married 26 May 1788; cohabited until the year 1793; grounds: “although by the mutual Vows plighted to each other [next 12 words careted] they were bound to live together with the utmost constancy and affection yet true it is, of verity, that the said James, hath been guilty of a wilfull and malicious desertion and absence without a reasonable cause from your Petitioner, for, and during the term and space of four Years, and now continues absent from her, the said Sarah.”  Testimony: George Alcorn, “about the age of thirty six years,” sworn to 14 Sept. 1803, he saw James “last Spring in this City … that he now lives in Boston having been in Egypt and returned from there with some money, that he had married a widow in Boston … and was willing to leave something with the libellant for his children but that he never meant to live with her”; Susanna Amies (signed Susana Amies), “about the age of thirty eight years,” sworn to 15 Sept. 1803, states that James “left the libellant before the yellow fever in the year [1793], and has not lived with her since that time … [that] the libellant has supported herself and her two children, by her own Industry … last Winter, that he [James] called at the house of the deponent[’]s husband, and told the deponent, that he lived in Boston, that he was doing very well, and was married to a rich Woman there [whose name she does not know]”; and Catherine Wills (signed Cathrine Wills), “about the age of thirty three years,” sworn to 15 Sept. 1803, that she is the sister of the libellant,” and was present at their wedding “at a house in Willings’s Alley in this City by the reverand Mr. Duffield a Presbyterian Clergyman.”  Divorced Sept. 1803.  FHL film #1023001, images 686-696 (688).

BUYERS, Jacob v. Anna.  Petition of Jacob Buyers (signed Jacob beyer[?]) of Middleton, Cumberland Co., sworn to in Cumberland Co. 22 Sept. and filed 26 Sept. 1797 (defendant served by proclamation and publication, as certified March 1798); married [date and place not stated] “a certain Anna DUMB”; grounds: “That the said Anna has committed Adultery with a certain John Metz of the said County & hath since eloped with the said Adulterer into the State of Virginia; that your Petitioner is ignorant at present of the Place of her residence.”  Testimony taken 6 Jan. 1798: Solomon Dentler states that he and Jacob followed Anna to Virginia and found her living near a place called Mansfield.  Testimony taken 9 Jan. 1798: Juliana Dumb (signed —[?] Julia D—[?]) states that “the Libellant is her daughter,” and that she “understands that the said Ann Buyers is now in the State of Kentucky.”  Record of indictment of Ann Beyers in the Cumberland Co. Court of Quarter Session beginning 7 Aug. 1797 for adultery in Cumberland Co. 1 Oct. 1792, certified 13 Feb. 1798.  Petition marked “not to be brought forward | Jany. 1803.”  FHL film #1023001, images 697-710 (697); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Cumberland County Pennsylvania Divorces, 1789-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1994), pp. 6-7.

CAMPBELL, John v. Rebecca.  Petition of John Campbell of Montgomery Twp., Franklin Co., sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 1 June and filed 6 June 1795 (subpoena served on defendant on 18 Aug. 1795 by Ebenezer Martin, and the alias subpoena on 31 Oct. 1795 by Francis Campbell); married “in the beginning of” Oct. 1787 Rebecca CLAPHAM, daughter of Josiah Clapham of Loudon Co., Va.; cohabited “until the beginning of April [1791]”; grounds: “That the said Rebecca the lawful wife of your Orator and Petitioner then being, then and there did wilfully and maliciously desert and abscond from your Orator and Petitioner then being the lawful Husband of the said Rebecca without any reasonable cause, for and during the term and space of foury years, and still doth continue her wilful and malicious desertion and absence.”  Testimony taken 11 Nov. 1795: John Flanigan (signed John A. Flanigan), above 25 years of age, farmer, inhabitant of Franklin Co.; John Kennedy, advanced in life, farmer, living in Franklin Co.; John Adair, “in the Middle Stage of life,” merchant, inhabitant of Franklin Co.; Catharine Angle (signed in German script Catarina Engall), about 26 years of age, wife of Jacob, farmer, living in Franklin Co.; Phillip Davis (signed Philip Davies), “in the Middle Stages of life,” farmer, inhabitant of Franklin Co.; and James Rhea (signed James Wray), “in the Middle Stages of life,” farmer, inhabitant of Franklin Co.  Divorced 29 Dec. 1795.  FHL film #1023002, images 4-44 (14).

CANNON, Elizabeth v. James.  Petition of Elizabeth Cannon “now of the City of PhiladelphiaWife of James Cannon of the same City Shopkeeper,” for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend Thomas Kurby, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice on 25 July 1796 and filed the same day; married “in the month of July [1795]”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that for upwards of nine months past the said James Cannon has treated your Petitioner in a very scandalous & improper manner, and has reviled and abused her very frequently with indecent Language and such improper Discourse as is highly unbecoming for a Woman of Modesty to hear – and that he has offered from time to time such Indignities to her Person as to her render her Condition intolerable & her life burthensome – whereby she has been forced to withdraw from his House and Family.”  Petition marked “Ended.”  FHL film #1023002, images 45-49 (47).

CARRÉ, Phillippa Ludbey v. Charles.  Petition of Phillippa Ludbey Carré of the City of Philadelphia for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Hynmers Taylor, sworn to 1 Oct. and filed 6 Oct. 1795; married “several years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that he hath nevertheless by cruel and barbarous treatment offered such Indignities to her Person as to render her condition intollerable [sic] and life burthensome and thereby forced her to withdraw from his house and family without affording her any support or maintenance.”  Answer of Charles Carré of the City of Philadelphia, sworn to 30 Dec. 1795, admits marrying her several years ago, but denies the mistreatment, stating that her suit arises “merely from an inconstant and undutiful disposition.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 14, 15, 16, and 17 Sept. 1796, respectively, all residents of the City of Philadelphia: Mary Dobbins, spinster, about the age of 25 (signed with her mark), states that she was a servant in the family while in Baltimore and later in Philadelphia; Jean Jacques Tranquelle Boutte Saint-Victor (signed Bout–[?] St.Victor), up[h]olsterer, aged about 45, “having arrived in Philadelphia about three years ago from the Island of S[anta] Domingo”; Jean Thomas Carré, “Teacher of the French language,” who arrived from Santa Domingo about two years ago, aged forty five, brother of the libellant, states that the parties married in March 1784, that they lived with him in Santa Domingo on the plantation of his mother-in-law until May 1787, then went to Hispaniola, then to Baltimore in 1793, and to Philadelphia in Jan. 1795, where he lived with them; James Vanuxem, Merchant.  Petition marked “Dec[embe]r 97 Ended says Mr. Lewis vide [i.e., see] Docq^t 97.1 vol. pa[ge]. 68.”  FHL film #1023002, images 50-99 (84).

CARVER, Joseph v. Hannah.  Petition of Joseph Carver, late of Bucks Co., now of the City of Philadelphia, and a resident of Pennsylvania “for several years previous to filing this Petition,” affirmed at Philadelphia 29 Jan. 1803 and filed that day at #84 March Term 1803; married 30 Dec. 1797 Hannah CARY; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Hannah your Petitioners wife without any reasonable cause, hath willfully and malitiously deserted and absented herself from him for and during the [next line] the space of four years and upwards.”  Testimony taken 10 Aug. 1803: Isaac Hicks, Esq., of Newtown, Bucks Co., who married the parties on 30 Dec. 1797; Charity Cummings, of Northampton Twp., Bucks Co., aged 32; James DeLancey, of Northampton Twp., Bucks Co., farmer, aged 42 (signed with his mark); Jane Thompson, wife of James Thompson, of Northampton Twp., aged 24; John Cooper, of Northampton Twp., aged 62, miller, states that Hannah was a member of the Wrightstown Society of Friends; Leffert Lefferts, of Northampton Twp., aged 23, taylor, states that he has known Joseph since infancy, and that Hannah now resides at Newtown; Robert Thomson (signed Robert Thompson), of Northampton Twp., 32 years of age and upwards, in the business of farming, states that Hannah’s father was Asa Cary of Newton; Joel Carver, 53 years of age and upwards, states that the libellant is his son.  Divorced 13 Sept. 1803.  FHL film #1023002, images 100-124 (100).

CASTLE, Charlotte v. Joseph.  Petition of Charlotte Castle “the wife of Joseph Castle of Philadelphia,” by her next friend Worsley Emes, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice in Philadelphia Co. 24 July and filed 29 July 1797 at #644 Sept. Term 1797; married 14 June 1784, and has since resided in Pennsylvania; grounds: “That On the sixteenth of June [1795] the said Joseph maliciously [next word careted] abandoned your Petitioner and his family and since the last mentioned period hath lived altogether separate and apart from your Petitioner and his family and in the meantime hath not in the least degree provided or contributed to provide for the maintenance of his family. And your Petitioner further avers, that the said Joseph shortly previous to his abandoning your Petitioner so conducted himself and offered such indignities to the Person of your Petitioner as to render her condition intolerable & her life burthensome.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 27 March 1798: Mary Jenkins, of the City of Philadelphia, spinster, aged 18 years, apprenticed to the Respondent for 5 years.  Divorced 29 March 1798.  FHL film #1023002, images 125-142 (139).

CHAMBERLAIN, Benjamin v. Eleanor.  Petition of Benjamin Chamberlain (signed with his mark) of the City of Philadelphia sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 13 July 1802 and filed that day at #263 Sept. Term 1802; married in the year 1796; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Eleanor in violation of her marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery.”  FHL film #1023002, images 143-149 (147).

CHAMBERLAIN, James v. Hannah.  Petition of James Chamberlain of the City of Philadelphia sworn to at Philadelphia 25 Jan 1804 and filed at #43 March Term 1804; married 2 March 1791 Hannah LEWIS; grounds: “the said Hannah in violation of her marriage Vow, on [next two words careted] or about the Sixteenth day of March, in the year last aforesaid, without a reasonable cause, wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented herself from the Society of him the said James and hath from that day, to the time of exhibiting this Libel at the City aforesaid in the County of Philadelphia, so[?] as aforesaid maliciously continued absent from the said James and hath and still doth refuse to live and cohabit with him the said James, and that the she the said Hannah the day and year last aforesaid, at the City and County aforesaid hath committed Adultery also in violation of her said marriage Vows.”  Testimony taken 15 March 1804: Margaret Maldroum, of the City of Philadelphia, “single woman of full-age,” states that Hannah had a child now about 8 years of age whom she said was by John Piercy.  Clerk’s marriage certificate, filed 20 March 1804, states that James Chamberlain and Hannah Lewis were both of Chester Co. and married on 21[?] March 1791.  Divorced 1 March 1804.  FHL film #1023002, images 150-161 (160).

CLANDENNIN/CLENDENNIN, Elizabeth v. John.  Petition of Elizabeth Clandennin for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony (signed with her mark), by her next friend John Thompson, sworn to in open court (and apparently filed on) 13 April 1786, when a subpoena was awarded; married 25 Feb. 1779; grounds: “that the said John for some Time conducted himself like a dutiful and affectionate Husband but afterwards without any cause given by your libellant assumed a brutal and barbarous behaviour towards her and frequently offered the most cruel indignities to her person: that in the Month of September 1780 the said John Clendennin of his own Malice and without any just cause or provocation actually turned your libellant with her infant child, not four Months old, out of Doors: That your libellant thereupon applied to the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Philadelphia who after hearing the allegations and proofs of both Parties made an order for the said John to pay your libellant the Sum of Seventy five Pounds Pennsylvania Currency per week for her support ¶ That after having been paid said allowance one Week the said John with great earnestness and appearance of affection sollicited [sic] your libellant to return to his house to which her sense of duty and desire of Reconciliation induced her to agree but it soon became evident that the said John was actuated more by the desire of evading the payment of the weekly allowance aforesaid than by any affectionate motives, for ¶ That your Libellant did not long continue there before she experienced a repetition of the cruel and barbarous treatment which she had formerly received from him and her condition having become intolerable and her Life absolutely burthensome she was forced to withdraw herself from his House and Family on the 13^th Aug^t 1785 ¶ Inasmuch as your libellant being thus compelled to leave the house of her said Husband is now without any [next two words careted] means of livelihood or support which your libellant expressly charges to be true and is ready to prove to the full satisfaction of the Court.”  Testimony taken 28 Sept. 1787: Mary Jones, wife of Samuel Jones, late of Northern Liberties Twp., states that John kept the Robinhood Tavern.  Also testimony (undated) of George Hart and Mark Mincer.  Divorced (as Clendennin) from bed & board 19 Jan. 1788.  FHL film #1023002, images 162-183 (166).

CLARK, Joanna v. George.  Petition of Joanna Clark, by her next friend Uriah Roe, sworn to in open court 2 Sept. 1805 and apparently filed that day (when a subpoena was awarded) at #1 Dec. Term 1805; married 6 Dec. 1798; cohabited until 4 Jan. 1803; grounds: “That the said George from the said fourth day of January in the year One thousand eight hundred hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Joanna, and such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four years and more, without just and [next word careted] or reasonable cause, and yet doth continue to absent himself from her the said Joanna. And your Petitioner further states, that since such desertion and absence of the said George, he has (as your Petitioner is informed and is able to prove) cohabitated with a certain Elizabeth Gaskill, alias Clark and lived with her as Man and wife, and committed Adultery with her, and has also had by her a child, which her the said George acknowledged to be his child.”  FHL film #1023002, images 184-186 (184).

CLEMENS, Valentine (a/k/a Wallentine) v. Catharine.  Petition of Valentine Clemens of the City of Philadelphia, cordwainer, signed at Philadelphia 3 Nov. 1790, sworn to in Philadelphia Co. the same day, and filed 30 Nov. 1790; [place and date of marriage not stated (but see certificate, below)]; grounds: “That on or about the sixteenth day of July in the Year of our Lord [1786, Catharine Clemens, the lawful Wife of your Petitioner, wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented herself, without reasonable cause, you’re your Petitioner (her Husband), leaving to his sole charge, care and expense, the maintainance of his four children by the said Catharine his Wife. That your Petitioner always faithfully discharged his duty as[?] a good Husband, to the said Catharine, to the best of his Abilities, while they cohabited together as Man and Wife, and that he should[?] have continued to demean himself towards her, in like manner, had she remained with him, as a true, faithful and good Wife, was in Duty bound to do: But your Petitioner, after waiting between four and five Months, in expectation of his said Wife returning to her Duty, was constrained to publish a Notification, in the Pennsylvania Packet of the first day of December, [1785], to caution all persons from crediting the said Catharine on Your Petitioner’s Account. That the Desertion and Misconduct of the said Catharine [next four words careted] on a former Occasion, had obliged Your Petitioner to publish a similar Notification in the Pennsylvania Packet of the twenty-fourth day of May, [1785]: But, that was since the Desertion of the said Catharine from the bed board and home of your Petitioner, in July, [1785], she has continued in wilful, malicious and voluntary Absence therefrom, and has never cohabited or lived with him one hour since that time, being upwards of four Years.”  Certification of marriage by Rector Andrew Georgeson, Rector of Swedish Church in Pa., of Wallentine Clemons to Catharine CASTER on 21 Dec. 1775.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 14 July 1790: Phœbe Spade, wife of John Spade, of the City of Philadelphia, aged 25 and upwards; George Filker (signed George Falker), of the City of Philadelphia, cordwainer; Thomas Rymer (signed Thomas Rimer), of the City of Philadelphia, cordwainer; and William Barton, Esq., of the City of Philadelphia, as to the certification of Nicholas Collin, Rector, on the attached marriage certificate.  Divorced 2 April 1791.  FHL film #1023003, images 187-214 (203).

COCHRANE, Alexander v. Phœbe.  Petition of Alexander Cochrane of the City of Philadelphia sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 25 Oct. 1796 and filed that day at #113 Dec. Term 1796 (surname written as COCHRAN on the cover of the petition and subpoenas); married 26 Feb. 1792 Phœbe MEEKER; grounds: [they] “continued to live together as Man and Wife until the [blank] day of September [1795] when the said Phœbe without any provocation on the part of the said Alexander wilfully & maliciously —[?] deserted him and absented herself from the said Alexander, [next seven words careted] and has committed the crime of adultery that the constant state in which the said Phœbe was in at the time of her so abandoning your Libellant & still is as your Libellant believes that of being intoxicated, that she has frequently attempted to deprive your Libellant of his Life her temper being intolerable.”  Petition marked “Jany. 1800 n.b.f. | vide [i.e., see] N^o 113 Dec^r 96.”  FHL film #1023002, images 215-221 (219).

COLLADY, Sophia v. Jacob.  Petition of Sophia Collady, late Sophia WONDERLY [a widow] (signed with her mark), by her next friend John Mingle, signed at the City of Philadelphia 8 March, sworn to there [blank] March, and filed [blank] March 1806 at #155 March Term 1806; married at Philadelphia on or about 8 Dec. 1805 “a certain Jacob Colladay of the City aforesaid [Philadelphia] house carpenter”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the said Jacob at the time of the said Contract of Marriage was, & still is naturally impotent and unable to procreate, by reason whereof the said Marriage never has been consummated, And altho your libellant is a young and healthy woman the said Jacob was at the time of the said Contract of Marriage, and still is unable to enjoy or have Carnal Knowledge of her body by reason of the said Impotency, which renders the life of your libellant Miserable and uncomfortable with the said Jacob.”  Testimony (undated), filed 27 Dec. 1806: William Wonderly, of the City of Philadelphia, Victualler, aged 46 and upwards, states that “the Libellant at the time of her marriage was the widow of his brother”; Sophia Hight (signed with her mark), of the City of Philadelphia, widow, aged 60 and upwards, states “that the Libellant is her daughter,” and that Jacob told her “that it would not have turned out so with him, had he not had, two severe falls,” injuring himself; Rev. Samuel Helfenstein, aged 51 and upwards, states that he married the couple on 9 Nov. 1805, that the Libellant’s mother had called upon him, that he had interviewed Jacob who said that he had at times been impotent during the lifetime of his former wife, and that he advised him to see Dr. Otto; John C. Otto, of the City of Philadelphia, Practitioner of Physick, aged 33 and upwards, that Jacob was apparently in good health, said that he “had been the father of several children,” and was given medicine solely to inspire his confidence.  FHL film #1023002, images 222-240 (235).

CONRAD, Catharine v. Mathias.  (First) petition of Catharine Conrad dated at Philadelphia 10 Jan. 1786, sworn to in open court that day, and filed at April Term 1786; married at Philadelphia Co. 27 Jan. 1777; cohabited until March 1785; grounds: “the said Mathias from the said Month of May [sic] [ [preceding bracket in original], (from which time he & your libellant hath lived seperate & apart from bed & board) and long before, totally alienated his affections, from your libellant, & hath given himself up to lewd practices, & to the having adulterous conversation & intercourse with lewd women, and more particularly that the said [next word careted] Mathias Conrad the space of six months last past hath lived [next ten words careted] at the City of Philadelphia the County of Philadelphia in open & avowed adultery with a certain Abigal friend, and yet doth continue [next word careted] to commit adultery with her the said Abigal as aforesaid. From all which it is evident That the said Mathias hath been guilty of Adultery.]”  (Second) petition of Catharine Conrad, “by her nearest friend” Jacob Strembach (signed Jacob Strembak), dated at Philadelphia 10 Feb. 1788 and sworn to there 11 Feb. 1788 (subpoena issued to “Mathias Conrad of Philadelphia yeoman” 22 Jan. [sic] 1788); married at Philadelphia Co. 27 Jan. 1777; cohabited until March 1785; grounds: “the said Matthias from the said Month of March hath totally alienated his affections from your libellant, & separated himself from her bed & board & finally on the twenty third day of October now last past did knowingly enter into a second marriage, in violation of the said previous marriage vow to your libellant made, & was by a certain Michael Schlatter, a minister of the Gospel in the said County, joined in matrimony on the same day & year, with a certain Abigal Johnston, Widow, the marriage between your libellant & the said Matthias, then & still subsisting in full force.  Marriage certificate by Michael Schlatter, Minister of the Gospel, given at Germantown Twp., Philadelphia Co., of Matthew Conrad [sic] “of Philadelphia City, Bachelor, and Abigail Johnson [sic] of Said place, Widow,” on 23 Oct. 1786.  Mathias’ answer, filed 12 July 1788, admits the marriage to Catharine, but the parties’ dispute and differences led to articles of separation on 28 March 1785.  Divorced 15 July 1788.  FHL film #1023002, images 241-252 (243, 251).

COOK, Deborah v. John.  Petition of Deborah Cook (signed with her mark), by her next friend William Nevill, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice at Philadelphia 29 May 1795 and filed that day; married 29 March 1789; grounds: “the said John Cook about three months after the said twenty ninth day of March in the year aforesaid, and at divers other days and times since that time, in violation of his Marriage Vow, hath maliciously and wilfully abandoned your Petitioner without [“out” careted] reasonable cause for the space of four Years & upwards and hath knowingly entered into a second marriage.”  Petition marked “no proceedings had.”  FHL film #1023002, images 253-256 (255).

COPELAND, Catharine v. Robert.  Petition of Catharine Copeland of Dauphin Co., by her next friend John Gossler, signed and sworn to 13 June and filed 10 July 1798 at #74 or #343 Sept. Term 1798 (subpoena and alias subpoena issued to Robert Copeland ’late of the County of Berks”; served by publication; married 17 April 1792; cohabited until 6 April 1794; grounds: “That the said Robert on the day & year last aforesaid wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from the Bed and board of your Libellant without any reasonable cause and has continued his said wilful and malicious desertion and absence from that period to the present time without any reasonable cause, and altho your Libellant has been solicitous of his return to her bed and board that the said wilful and malicious desertion and absence has already continued for more than four years and that at present no hopes remain that he will return to his duty as a Husband.”  Testimony sworn to 17 Dec. 1798: Daniel Rose states that he has known Catharine “since she was an infant, ” that “the parties lived in his house from April 1793 to April 1794,” that he met Robert at Chambersburg 17 Oct. 1798, and that he and Conrad Fager of Reading were sureties for Robert in administering his father’s estate and have not been able to find him.  Testimony sworn to 28 Dec. 1798: John Gossler states that he has known Catharine “since her childhood,” that he believes that the said Robert Copeland has never since the said tenth day of May 1794 provided his Wife Catharine Copeland with food clothing or necessaries – she lived after that time with her father till his death, which happened deponent believes, before the end of the same year; And after the death of her father she lived with her brother, with whom she still remains.”  Divorced 28 Dec. 1798.  FLH film E1023002, images 257-273 (259).

CORDELL, Mary v. James.  Petition of Mary Cordell “the Wife of James Cordell late of Germantown in the County of Philadelphia Innkeeper,” by her next friend Joseph Spencer, affirmed 4 April and filed 5 April 1787 (copy of subpoena, as well as the alias subpoena, “left at the Goal [i.e., Philadelphia jail] being the last place of his abode”); married in the District of Southwark in Philadelphia Co. 18 Jan. 1780; grounds: “before they had been married three months, he treated her in a very cruel manner without any just Cause, that in hopes of his Amendment, She endeavoured [sic] to conceal the same from the knowledge of the Word, and, (except an absence of about five Weeks, to which She was impelled by his said cruel Treatment) continued to live with him till the Time herein after mentioned, that in or about the Month of April Anno Domini 1782, finding the said ill Treatment to continue with an increased malignity, and conceiving her Life to be in danger, She determined to complain to a Magistrate, and set off with her Child for that Purpose ¶ That he said James thereupon (and as She is informed, and verily beleives, on the night of the same Day) withdrew himself from the House in which they lived, and thereby wilfully and maliciously, and without any reasonable Cause deserted and absented himself from your Petitioner, and hath ever since continued so to do, by withdrawing himself to the State [next word careted] of Maryland Delaware & New Jersey and other Places to your Petitioner unknown.”  Certification of marriage from the records of Swedes Church, Philadelphia, of James Cordell and Mary LUKANS on 18 Jan. 1780 byNicholas Collin, present Rector, dated 1 Oct. 1788.  Testimony taken at the City of Philadelphia 6 Oct. 1788: Israel Roberts, of the City and County of Philadelphia, innkeeper, aged 37 and upwards, states that he has known Mary since she was about two years old; Catharine Sowder (signed with her mark), of the City and County of Philadelphia, aged about 41; and Robert Morris, of Bristol Twp., Philadelphia Co., miller, aged 42 and upwards.  Divorced 24 Sept. 1788, as certified 7 Oct. 1788.  FHL film #1023002, images 274-295, 297 (283).

CORMAN, Mary v. Frederic.  Petition of Mary Corman, late Mary WEST (signed with her mark), by her next friend Lewis Voight (signed Lewis Foight), sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice at Philadelphia 12 June 1793 and filed the same day; married 30 April “now last past [1793] Frederic Corman who She then believed was clear of any other marriage engagement”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “But she hath since found that the said Frederick Corman was then married to another person whose name as your libellant is informed is Catherine Corman which marriage is still subsisting and the said Catharine is now resident in some part of the County of Philadelphia or of Montgomery.”  Petition marked “Struck off by Mr. Rawle vide [i.e., see] Vol. 98 pa. 14.”  FHL film #1023002, images 296, 298-300 (298).

CORVAISIER, Jane v. Bartholomew [Barthelemy].  Petition of Jane Corvaisier, “a native of Charleston in the state of South Carolina, born in lawful marriage of Samuel Groves of Charleston aforesaid, merchant, and Jane his wife,” by her next friend William Bradford, signed at Philadelphia 28 July 1795 and sworn to and filed the same day; married “at Charleston aforesaid to the said Bartholmew Corvaisier, on the Second day of January [1780], and afterwards on the twelfth of August [1786], the said marriage was Confirmed and ratified at Port-au-Prince, in the Island of S^t Domingo, according to the rites of the Catholic Church, in order to render the Said Marriage valid in that Country according to the Laws then and there in force, which did not recognize as valid marriages celebrated by Protestant Clergyman. That there are no children now living proceeding from said marriage”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the Said Bartholomew Since the said intermarriage & the ratification of the Same as aforesaid, in violation of the vows thereof has committed adultery with divers Lewd and abandoned women, and especially has lived and cohabited for a considerable time in a public, open and notorious State of Adultery with a certain woman of the name of Duval, to the great grief and injury of your Petitioner.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 9 Sept. 1795: James Maturine Benoist, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, aged 40 and upwards, states that he has known Jane “since 1784, or 1785, at which time she came to Port-au-Prince … arriving from America,” that she came from Port-au-Prince to America in Nov. 1791, and that he was a partner of the defendant, who has had adulterous connection with women named Duval and Paquod; Charles Robin, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, aged 31 and upwards, states that he has known Jane since 1787, at Port-au-Prince.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 10 Sept. 1795: Celia, (signed with her mark), “a free negro woman at the City of Philadelphia, aged 40 years and upwards,” states ”[t]hat she was formerly a slave in the farm of Samuel and Jane Groves of Charleston in the State of South Carolina, whose daughter the Libellant was, that this Deponent was present at the birth of the Libellant and nursed her during her infancy in Charleston, but does not recollect the Libellant’s age, … That sometime before the taking of Charleston, during the late war, the Libellant and Defendant were there married,”and that he afterwards left Charleston for four or five years, “but soon after his return, the parties went together to the West Indies.”  Answer (undated) of Bartholomew (signed Barthelemy Corvaisier), of Burlington, Burlington Co., New Jersey, Gentleman, admitting the marriage places and dates stated in the petition, and “not but that he hath violated the duties of the marriage state and the vows thereof in the manner and form aforesaid, to witt in the State of New Jersey.“  Divorced 7 Sept. 1795.  FHL film #1023002, images 301-319 (317).

COUNCIL, Nancy v. William.  Petition of Nancy [changed from Ann] Council, late Ann COX, by her brother and next friend Jacob Cox, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, signed and sworn to before an alderman, and filed 25 April 1800 at #72 Sept. Term 1803 (subpoena issued to William Council “late of the County of Philadelphia”; served by proclamation); married at the City and County of Philadelphia 20 Dec. 1788, she being a daughter of Moses Cox; cohabited until the last of Sept. 1795; grounds: “the said William, from the said Month of September from which time he and your Libellant hath lived seperate and apart from bed and board, and having before totally alienated his affections from your Libellant, and given himself up to Lewd Practices, besides having cruelly, maltreated, abused and renderd the Life of your Petitioner burthensome, by offering Every possible Degradation and Indignity to her – and more Especially, by wilful and malicious, Desertion, and absence, from your Petitioner for four years & upwards without reasonable Cause. All of which it is Evident the said William hath been Guilty of.”  Testimony taken 6 Dec. 1800: Jacob Coxe (signed Jacob Cox), of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, states that he is the Libellant’s brother, that she has remained with her father Moses in Philadelphia, and that he has heard that William, who has not been in Philadelphia for the past five years, has been in Delaware; Moses Cox states that he is the Libellant’s father and that William, who “has done nothing towards the maintenance of her and his family,” was “considerably embarrassed in his circumstances” when he first left.  Divorced 14 Dec. 1800.  FHL film #1023003, images 320-333 (327).

CRAIG, Agnes v. John.  Petition “of Agnes Craig, late Agnes LORIMER, (signed with her mark), by her father and next friend David Lorimer, sworn to in Westmoreland Co. 7 July 1790 and filed 17 Aug. 1790 (subpoena issued to John Craig, “yeoman,” who in 1791 was said not to have been in Westmoreland Co. for six years; served by publication); married in the month of Feb. 1785 “to a certain John Craig then in Westmoreland County and State of Pennsylvania”; grounds: “That in a few days thereafter and in the month and year aforesaid the said John Craig her Husband did willfully and maliciously and without a reasonable cause desert her the said Agnes, and for the space of four years and upwards to wit from the time of his said desertion in the month and year aforesaid, willfully and maliciously, and without a reasonable cause hath absented himself, and willfully and maliciously and without a reasonable cause yet doth absent himself from her the said Agnes; that the said Agnes was born in the said Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and hath constantly resided therein, and at the time of her said marriage did reside and ever since hath resided, and now doth reside with her father the said David Lorimer in the said County of Westmoreland, and was and is a citizen of the said Commonwealth at the time of the filing of the present Peition for one year previous thereto, and for the whole of her life past; That ever since the time of the desertion of the said John in the month and year aforesaid and during the absence of the said John from her the said Agnes hath not had, and yet hath not any knowledge of the residence or place of abode of the said John Craig aforesaid; but ever since his said desertion till now to wit for the space of four years and upwards the said John hath willfully and maliciously and without any reasonable cause absented himself from her the said Agnes and yet doth so absent himself.”  Petition marked “Sep[t] [17]95 not to be brought forw[ar]d, vide [i.e., see] Docqt. 95 pa. 81.”  FHL film #1023003, images 334-342 (334).

CRAWFORD, Ann v. John.  Petition of Ann Crawford, by her next friend Gerardus Conwell, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 4 Aug. and filed 5 Aug. 1802 at #333 Sept. Term 1802 (defenant served “in the Criminal appartment”); married 30 May 1799; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said John Crawford in violation of his marriage Vow hath for a considerable time past given himself up to adulterous practices and hath been guilty of Adultery.”  Answer of John Crawford dated at Philadelphia Prison –[?] Sept. and filed 18 Sept. 1802, petitioning for a continuance: that he was married to “Ann in June 1799, and in the same Year in the County of Lancaster was then and there convicted of passing one counterfeit or base Dollar in the Year 1797, for which offense was adjudged by the Court to Confinement for twelve years,” that he therefore “is destitute of Money to employ sufficient Counsel in so important a cause,” which should be deferred as “some of his most principle evidence hath fled he knoweth not where on account of the alarming Fever but by (or before) the next Court he expects to be at liberty to attend before your Honors, then and there by undeniable testamony [sic] he will show before the Court that Strict Justice will not allow the prayer of her Petition, and that it hath not been her own wish, but since his confinement she hath had no Earthly Protector, that by the Authority of her pretended friends, She hath been kept from visiting him, and also to sue for the said divorcement that they may Marry his wife to another Man for no other cause than that he possesses a large Property and that by the Connection they expect to be benefited [etc. etc.].&148;  Testimony taken at Philadelphia Co. 28 Dec. 1802: Margaret Mussentine[?] of the District of Southwark, Philadelphia Co., states that the defendant, calling himself Robinson, had stayed at her boarding house with a woman he called his wife for three days.”   Divorced 31 Dec. 1803.  FHL film #1023002, images 343-354 (352).

CROSBY, Ann v. Elisha.  Petition of Ann Crosby of Philadelphia, by her next friend John Man (signed John Mann), dated, sworn to at Philadelphia, and filed 29 Jan. 1796 (Elisha served by publication); married 27 June 1787; cohabited “until sometime In the Year of Our Lord One thousand seven-hundred & Ninety two”; grounds: “the said Elisha, from the said year [1792] lived seperate and apart from Bed and Board, having before Totally alienated his affections from your Libellant And given himself up to Lewd Practices and to the having Adulterous Conversation and Intercourse with Lewd women and more particularly that he the said Elisha during part of the time he hath so seperated himself from your Libellant, lived in the District [next word careted] of Southwork and County of Philadelphia in Open and avowed adultery with a certain Lydia Baynton for the Term and time of Nine Months, and did continue for the time aforesaid to Commit adultery, from all of which it is Evident that the said Elisha hath been Guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken in Philadelphia 16 Sept. 1796: John Lewis, “of the City of Philadelphia shop-keeper, a free negro, states that about eighteen months ago when he knocked on the defendant’s door early one morning he saw him in bed with Edith Baynton, but has not heard anything of him for upwards of a year.  Divorced 31 Dec. 1796 [not 5 Sept.], certified 13 Jan. 1797.  FHL film #1023002, images 355-370 (368).

CROSSMAN, Henry v. Barbara.  Petition of Henry Crossman of the City of Philadelphia sworn to before the Chief Justice at Philadelphia 7 April 1798 and filed at #30 Sept. Term 1798 (subpoena to Barbara marked “N^o 2 S. 4^th S^t, served); married “upwards of Eighteen Months since” Barbara SHOEMAKER; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Barbara, unmindful of her Marriage Vow, and in Violation of the Duties thereby enjoined, hath since the Celebration of the said Marriage, committed adultery with a certain John L. Cunitz.”  FHL film #1023002, images 371-375 (373).

CUMMINS, Eliza L. v. Francis D.  Petition of Eliza L. Cummins for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony dated and sworn to and filed 14 April 1814 at #80 March Term 1814; married 27 Nov. 1813; grounds: “That the said Francis D Cummins did on Wednesday the 6^th of April instant turn your Petitioner out of doors, and that he has almost ever since his marriage with this complainant continued to offer such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable.”  Francis’s answer, filed 19 May 1814, acknowledges the marriage but denies the other allegations.  FHL film #1023002, images 376-380 (376).  See also Eliza’s 1815 statutory divorce from Francis.

CUNEAS, Catharine v. William.  Petition of Catharine Cuneas (signed in German script Catrina Cüneas) of the City of Philadelphia, by her next friend Jacob Walter, sworn to before an alderman of the City of Philadelphia [blank] Feb. 1798 and filed 10 March 1798; married “about the month of October in the year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and Seventy Seven at the Borrough [sic] of Reading in the state of Pennsylvania … a certain William Cuneas of Berks County”; cohabited “for the Space of Six years and seven months afterwards”; grounds: “at the Expiration of which time the said William Cuneas, wilfully and maliciously deserted, and absented himself from your Libellant [next four words careted] without any reasonable Cause and hath [next seven words careted] never Since returned to her but hath married another woman since or lives with her in a state of adultery.”  Petition marked “quæ[?] if [or is?] ended vide [i.e., see] No. 2 Sep [Term 17]98.”   FHL film #1023002, images 381-386 (384).

DABADIE, John v. Elizabeth Marguerite.  Petition of John Dabadie dated and sworn to before the Mayor 29 Jan. and filed 2 Feb. 1803 at #68 March Term 1803 (served by proclamation); married in the month of Feb. 1793; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Elizabeth Marguerite Dabadie hath for a considerable time past been guilty of adultery and particularly with a certain Philip Gustave Gallard.”  Testimony taken 16 Sept. 1803: John Monges, of the City of Philadelphia, physician, states that he has been their family physician since 1793 in Philadelphia “except for about eighteen months during which they resided at Wilmington,” that the defendant has gone to France with Mr. Gallard, and that she was delivered of a dead child in the summer of 1801; Augustus Defrances (signed A. de Frances), aged 34, refers to John’s marriage in 1793 at Cape Francois; Robert Delauncy, aged 24, states that he has lived as a clerk with the Libellant for two years, and the defendant left John’s house about 18 months ago, and believes she went to France with Mr. Gallard; Sarah Aneil (signed with her mark), of the City of Philadelphia, married, aged 30, states that she lived with the parties for nearly two years “as a childs nurse,” and that the Libellant usually removed with his family to the country in the summer and while away Mr. Gallard would come.  Divorced 17 Sept. 1803.  FHL film #1023002, images 388-400 (392).

DAVIS, Mary v. Benjamin.  Petition of Mary Davis “of the County of Philadelphia wife of Benjamin Davis late of the same County,” by her next friend Benjamin Keyser, dated, sworn to, and filed 10 Aug. 1799; married “upwards of twenty five years … to the s^d Benjamin [surname careted] Davis then of the same County”; grounds: “that about twenty years since the s^d Benjamin [surname careted] Davis wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself without a reasonable [next word careted] cause from your Libellant and hath ever since continued so to do.”  Testimony taken 24 March 1800: Peter Smith, states that he has known the Libellant nearly 40 years, and the defendant “some time before the American Revolution,” and “that the libellant was deserted and abandoned by her husband first about the year 1772 or 1773 when she came to live at the rising sun in the neighbourhood of this deponent; that the defendant never returned until the year 1777 when he came to Philadelphia with the British army; that he then came to the rising sun which the libellant kept as a public house, took possession of it, sold the liquors, and used the libellant so ill as to oblige her to leave the house; and that the defendant accompanied the British when they left Philadelphia the next year, and has never returned.”; Rebecca Fance (signed with her mark), who has known the libellant since the deponent was very young.  Divorced 4 Sept. 1800.  FHL film #1023002, images 401-417 (412).

DAVIS, Mœtitia v. Eleanor.  Petition of Mœtitia Davis “at present the Husband of Eleanor Davis late of the County of Philadelphia,” affirmed before a Supreme Court Justice 10 Nov. 1800 and filed that day at #124 Dec. Term 1800; married “about seven years ago”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Eleanor since the first day of January one thousand eight hundred committed divers acts of Adultery.”  FHL film #1023002, images 418-423 (422).

DENNING, Catherine v. Jesse.  Petition of Catherine Denning (given named signed in German script Catherina), by her next friend Simon Sugart, affirmed before a [Philadelphia?] alderman 7 Dec. and filed 15 Dec. 1801 at #378 Dec. Term 1801; married 15 April 1798; cohabited until the month of July 1801; grounds: “That the said Jesse for [word stricken] a considerable time last past in violation of the marriage vow hath given himself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery.”  FHL film #1023002, images 424-428 (426).

DESHLER, Susannah v. George.  Petition of Susannah Deshler (signed Susanna Deshler), by her next friend “Jacob Dreisbach George Butz, dated and sworn to before a common pleas judge of Northampton Co. on 27 July and filed 6 Sept. 1803 at #413 Sept. Term 1803 (the return of the subpoena states that George’s place of usual abode was in Allen Twp., Northampton Co.); married “about nine years since … by whom she has two children”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the said George Deshler for more than four years last past has wilfully and maliciously deserted your Libellant and his family and absented himself from them without any reasonable cause.”  Testimony (undated, certified 17 March 1804): Peter Dreisbach (signed in German script), states that “the said Libellant being his Sister and the said George Deshler he has known about fifteen years,” he was present at their marriage in Sept. 1791, they cohabited about seven years and had three children, the desertion was in March 1799, and “the said Susanna Dehler has lived wih her father Simon Dreisbach ever since the said year of 1791”; Jacob Dreisbach, states “that the said Susanna is his sister,” and that the parties “were joined in matrimony by the Reverend Mr. Vanderslut in the Month of September in the year 1791 … [and cohabited] about seven years and a half” and had three children; Ulrich Heckman; John Hugenbugh (signed John Hagenbüch).  Divorced 21 March 1804.  FHL film #1023002, images 429-444 (432).

DESHONG, Catherine v. John V.  Petition of Catherine Deshong (signed with her mark) “at present the wife of John V. Deshong late of the County of Philadelphia Scrivener,” by her next friend Lambert Wilmer, dated and sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 16 Sept. 1800 and filed 20 Sept. 1800 at #15 Dec. Term 1800; married “about fifteen years ago”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said John V. Deshong since the first day of January one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine did maliciously turn your petitioner out of doors & by cruel &barbarous treatment did endanger her life & offer such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and life burthensome & thereby force her to withdraw from his house &family.”  Petition marked “feb^y 1801 Discont[inue]^d.”  FHL film #1023002, images 418-419, 445-449 (447).

DENNY, Catherine v. Jesse.  Petition of Catherine Denny for a divorce from bed & board filed in 1799 [missing; subpoena only].  FHL film #1023002, images 450-451.

DEYLY/DEILŸ, Catherine v. Christian.  Petition of Catherine Deyly (signed in German script Cathrina Deilÿ) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Stephen Balliott (signed Stephen Balliet), sworn to before Nicholas Saeger, Northampton Co. Justice of the Peace, 22 Jan. 1802 and filed at #2 Sept. Term 1802 (defendant served by David Deshler 9 Aug. 1802 as attested that day in Northampton Co. before Charles Deshler); married 18 Sept. 1798 “Christian Deyly of Richland Township Bucks County, with whom for some time after said marriage she lived in good harmony”; grounds: “That about the Month of May 1799, without any known cause of offence given by your Petitioner, her said husband became unpleasant and morose in his manner to her, frequently treating her with great personal indignity – That your Petitioner endeavoured by mild & conciliating means to effect a change of this unhappy conduct and draw him to kindness & affection, but to no purpose – That owing to this cruel & barbarous treatment and the indignities he constandly offered to the person of your Petitioner he compelled her to leave his house & family, threatning her with the most violent abuse if she should return thereto – that notwithstanding, by the advice and entreaty of her best friends and nearest relations, your Petitioner again took recollection[?] to return to her said husband in hopes of conquering his disaffections, by kindness and humility – but alas her best endeavours were in vain – Your Petitioner instead of being received and treated as a Wife, was received with coldness, afterwards treated with great personal indignity and blows, and lastly with a Cart whip — That by such treatment he has rendered her life with him burthensome & her condition intolerable.” Testimony (undated) on the part of the Libellant, noting that “As to the third Interrogatory it is admitted by both parties, that they have no Children”: Jacob Schreiber (signed in German script) states “that he was present in the month of September 1798 when Christian Deyley was Joined in matrimony with Catherine Deyley late Catharine Deshler by the Reverend M^r Abraham Blumer, that he has known the said Catharine since she was a young woman, but Christian Deyley he has only known since the time he was so married to the said Catherine, that [interlined word(s)] according to the best of his knowledge the said Catharine Deyley was intitled to a yearly Dower of about the value of forty two pounds out of the real Estate of her former husband Adam Deshler deceased, but what part thereof came into the hands of the said Christian, he cannot say, nor [next two words careted] has he any knowledge as to what personal Estate came to his hands with his said wife.”; Nicholas Kern states that he “was present when Christian Deyley was joined into the bonds of matrimony with Catharine the Libellant by the Reverend M^r Blumer, but the time he does not exactly know – knows them to have lived together as man and wife in Bucks County, having been at their place of residence about six weeks after their marriage, [and] “says the same as Jacob Schreiber with respect of the yearly Dower of the real Estate coming to the said Catharine out of [next word careted] her former husband’s Estate – that about six weeks after the said Christian was married to the said Catharine, he was in company with four of five Teams that were loaded with Indian Corn, potatoes Cabage &c which they unloaded at the said Christian’s, but cannot remember that there were any household furniture on the said Waggons.”; Jacob Ritter states “that Catharine Deyley came to his house in the Summer of the year 1804 and showed him a mark she had on her right arm and said her husband had struck her, which was the occasion of that mark – saw no ill treatment personally.”; Margaret Hoffman (signed in German script margret hofmann) states that she “never say saw any ill treatment of Christian Deyley to his wife the said Catharine – but that she often complained to her, that he struck [next two words careted] her once and used her ill and that she could not live with him – that the said Christian never abandoned his family to her knowledge.”; Daniel Walton states “that Christian Deyley came to his house sometime after his wife had left him and in a conversation with the said Christian he acknowledged to the Evidence that he had struck his wife twice and that he was sorry for it, that Christian Deyley is possessed and intitled unto 73 Acres of Deeded Land situate partly in Richland and partly in Springfield Township, County of Bucks of about the yearly value of twenty pounds and that he supposes the said Christian’s personal Estate to be of about the value of seventy five pounds.”; Andrew Ohl (signed in German script) states “that in the fall of the year 1801 he was at the house of Christian Deyley, that the said Christian acknowledged to him that he had struck his wife Catharine – that he saw a mark on her right shoulder which she told him was occasioned by a strock she had received from her husband.”; David Deshler states “that the said Christian Deyley received with his said wife Catharine at their time of marriage three Cows, six sheep, nine hoggs, three feather Beds and beding compleat, one, twenty four hour Clock, one Chest of Drawers, one Corner Cupboard with glass door, one Walnut Table, six green Chairs and sundry tichling[?] Articles of Kitchen furniture also two wagon loads of Indian Corn in the Ears.”; Jacob Steiner states “that sometime in the fall of the year 1801 Catharine Deyley came to his house and told him that she and her husband Christian Deyely lived very unhappy and that he as Church Elder should be so good as to go to his house and make inquiry into the Affairs and see who was to blame or in the fault – that he with three others of the Elders went to the said Christian’s house and after some conversation recommended it to them to live more agreeably together, whereupon the said Christian and Catharine promised so to do, and gave one another the hand.”; Stephen Horn states “that he was one of the Elders above mentioned that went to the house of Christian Deyley and relates the same in substance as Jacob Steiner.”; Everard Foulke states “that sometime in the Summer of the year 1799 Christian Deyley sent from him, that he went to his house, when he came there found that the said Christian’s wife was going to leave him, and that they both seemed much affected and in tears – that the wife seemed reluctant to go and said she would rather stay than go – the husband replied since things is gone so far, let her go in Gods name – that there were [next two words careted] two or three or four wagon’s there to carry her effects, that he saw the waggons loaded, [and] that in the fall of the year 1801 the parties met at Roudebuch’s Tavern in order to leave their difference to Men – that one of the persons appointed did not attend – so that nothing was done – that neither of the parties seemed willing to live together [next line] the said Christian acknowledged that he had struck his wife a couple of times.”; Peter Kern states “that in the month of March in the year 1800 at the request of Catharine Deyley he went with her to her husband’s house to endeavor to compromise and accommodate matters so that they might live together again, that after some conversation Christian Deyley said that his said wife might come back again [next four words careted] he would maintain her but declared that he would never live with her again as man and wife — that notwithstanding she [next word careted] afterwards moved down to her husband’s and lived with him sometime.”; William Kern, Esq., states “that sometime in November in the year 1801 Catharine Deyley came to him as a Justice of the peace and complained that her husband Christian Deyley had beat her and treated her ill, that he made her live up stairs alone, that she had not victuals enough for her support [next line] that he always have her the hardest part of the bread and the worst of the Meat, and when she complained &ndash said it was good enough for her – that he had struck her with a Cartwhip, that she could show the marks yet, that for two years past she had no comfort in the house for that her husband’s Sons abused her and threatened her very much and demanded a Warrant against her husband & sons — did not issue a warrant but sent M^r Deyley a few lines stating the complaints and requested to see him – in consequence thereof Christian Deyley and his wife attended at his office and after her repeating the above grievances – Deyley acknowledged he had struck her twice, one with a Cartwhip and the other with his flathand – and gave for his reason because she had carried off some bed cloths & other Cloths in order to go away from him — the wife offered to go back and live with him if he would use her as he ought to do – the husband replied that after pushing[?] me to so much trouble, I cannot live with you agreeably, I will maintain you, but cannot live with you as man & wife [next line] that after some conversation between the parties, they agreed on a reference — Deyley offered his wife that if she would go back and live with him, he would give Security that he would not [next word careted] use beat her ill and would maintain her.”  Testimony on the part of the Respondent (undated) taken on interrogatories dated at Philadelphia 5 March 1803, 1.) Do you know whether the above named Christian Doyley and Catherine Doyley have lived in a State of Separation during the present or any part of last Year; 2.) Do you know of any Impropriety of Conduct or Disposition on the part of the said Catherine that should occasion such a separation; 3.) Do you know of any offers on the part of the said Christian since the said Separation, to receive the said Catherine again to cohabit with her and to use her as a good Husband ought to do? If yea state the time and Manner of such offer; 4.) Do you know of Conduct on the part of the said Catherine since the said Separation calculated to prevent a Reconciliation between her and the said Christian; 5.) Do you know of any other Matter or Thing material to the Defendant in this Cause? If yea relate the same particularly and at large: Joseph Fry (signed in German script Joseph Fre˜[?]) states “[1st interrogatory] that Christian Deyley and Catharine his wife have lived in a State of Separation since the fall of the year 1801. [2nd interrogatory]: Can give no Answer. [3rd interrogatory] that he knows that Christian Deyley offered his wife that if she would [next word careted] go back to him and live with him as a wife ought to do, and not repeat old stories or go about in the neighbourhood, [next two words careted] hotling and setting the Neighbours at variance he would use her well and as a husband ought to do – this the said Christian off– said aid before the fall of the year 1801 and since. [4th interrogatory] Cannot give an Answer. [5th interrogatory] that he was one of the persons chosen by the parties on the first Separation to accommodate and decide the difference between them, that on hearing the complaint of the said Catharine they were of opinion there was no just cause for her leaving her family the reason she gave being rather frivolous – upon the question being put to her by her husband why she had bespoke wagons to take away her goods without his knowledge – she Answered in Order 88 you – this was in the fall of the year 1799.”; Jacob Deal (signed Jacob Diehl) states “that in the fall of the yar 1801 he went with Christian Deyly to Justice Kern’s, heard Deyley offer his wife that if she would go home and live with him, he would [next word careted] give her Security that he would never strick her and would use her as a wife, but she should leave off casting reflections — that the Evidence has often worked at Deyley’s house and was there for two weeks together, that he never saw of heard any difference between them and that his wife did eat at the table with her husband and that there was always Victuals plenty on the table and that she might help herself to what she pleased.”  Additional testimony: “On the tenth day of August A^o Dⁱ 1803 by consent of the parties (notice having been previously given to Chistian Deyly the Respondent a Copy whereof is hereunto annexed [dated at Whitehall 1 Aug. 1803 and served by David Deshler on 6 Aug. 1803]) George Wolf Esq^r appearing on behalf of the said Christian, came before me the within named Commissioner, David Deshler who being sworn according to law did declare and say in addition to his Evidence heretofore given as follows, towit, that the house, garden and one Acre of Land and a half an Acre of meadow part of the Dower of Catharine Deyley bequeathed her by her former husband Adam Deshler during her widowhood, now does and all along since her last marriage rent for the Annual Sum[?] of [torn] pounds and that the said ChristCatharine was possessed of one tar[?] solid stove compleat and pipe of the value of twelve pounds at the time of her marriage aforesaid and which Stove and pipe came into the possession of the said Christian.”  Petition marked “13 March 1804 Dismissed with Costs.”  FHL film #1023002, images 452-477 (475).

DICKERSON see DICKINSON

DICKINSON, Phœbe v. Lawrence F.  [First] Petition of Phœbe Dickinson of the City of Philadelphia, “wife of Lawrence Dickinson of the same city,” by her next friend William T Palmer, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 6 March 1798 and filed at #4 Sept. Term 1798, with subpoena issued 22 March 1798; married “upwards of seven years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: he, “unmindful of his marriage vow, and the duties thereby imposed hath at divers times since the celebration of the s^d marriage committed adultery with certain lewd women to your Libellant unknown.” [Second] petition of Phœbe Dickenson (signed Phebe Dickinson), of the City of Philadelphia, by her next friend Richard Palmer, sworn to (as Phœbe Dickerson) before a Supreme Court Justice 17 July 1801 and filed that day at #194 Sept. Term 1801 (served by proclamation); married on or about 22 April 1789 “in the said City”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “regardless of his marriage vows and the sacdred duties thereby imposed on him, hath for the space of four years last past & more willfully & maliciously deserted & absented himself from his said wife, without any reasonable cause.”  Testimony (as Dickerson) sworn to 16 March 1802: George Sweetman of Biberry Twp., Buchs Co., states “that during the year one thousand seven hundred ninety seven the deponent resided in the City of Burlington in the State of New Jersey and kept Tavern there, that early in the Course of that year the deponent became acquainted with Lawrence F Dickerson the defendant abovenamed, that the said Lawrence lodged at the house of this deponent from the in Burlington aforesaid from the Twenty ninth of April to the twelfth of May one thousand seven hundred ninety seven, that the said Phœbe his wife was not with him and further saith not.” Testimony (as Dickerson) sworn to 20 March 1802: Hester Ann Miller, of the city of Philadelphia, widow, states “that she is the sister of Phœbe Dickerson, the Libellant have knew Lawrence F. Dickerson the defendant, eight or nine months before marriage with the said Phœbe … that the Parties to the Cause were married on the twenty second day of April 1789 at the house of this deponent in the city of Philadelphia, and this deponent was present at the time … that the said Lawrence departed from and left the Libellant about the end of September 1795 and has never since returned to her. That at the time of his departure this deponent and the said Phœbe Dickerson lived together with their mother, and continued to do so until their Mother’s death, which happened in May 1798, since which time the said Phœbe has lived with this deponent … that at the time of the departure of the said Lawrence, the Libellant had two children by him: a girl of between five and six years of age, and a boy but two weeks old, and at the time he went away she had not recovered from her confinement with the last child … that to the best of her knowledge the said Lawrence had no reasonable cause for deserting the Libellant, who always behaved to him to the best of this deponents knowledge, in every respect as a [word stricken] wife ought to do … that the said Lawrence since his departure from his said wife had not remitted to her or furnished her with any thing for the maintenance of herself or her children: that the said Phœbe, from the time the said Lawrence left her till November 1797, was supported by her Mother, and has, from the said month of November to the present time been supported with her children by this deponent … that for a considerable time before the said Lawrence left his wife he was very lazy and did nothing for the support of his family, which had been supported for four or five months before his departure, by this deponents Mother: but that She does not know of her own knowledge that he was intemperate, as he was not often in the house except at meals. As to his conduct since his departure, this deponent knows nothing of it … that she has related all that she recollects material to this Cause.”; Sarah Wright (signed with her mark), of the city of Philadelphia, a married woman, states “that she has been acquainted with the Phœbe Dickerson, the Libellant for seventeen years past, and has known the said Lawrence since a short time after his marriage with the said Phœbe … that the Parties to the Cause lived together as man and wife, and were generally reputed to be so … that in the month of April 1797 the said Lawrence F. Dickerson, left the city of Philadelphia, and has not since returned to it so far as this deponent knows and believes, or has heard, that he was at the house of this deponent the evening before he went away, and told her that he would leave the city the next morning, and intended never to return to it: the cause of which was, as he told this deponent, that he was afraid of being prosecuted for having stolen some chairs, which he had taken from a shop in which he had been working, and brought them to the house of this deponent where he requested they might stay until the next morning, as he had to carry them to another shop which was then locked. That the said Lawrence had not for a considerable time before he left Philadelphia lived with his wife, but this deponent saw them several times walk in the street together … that at the time the said Lawrence left Philadelphia as aforesaid the said Phœbe had two children by him which were living, one of them about seven years old, and the other very young … that she was very intimate with the family of the Parties to this Cause, and never saw or knew in the conduct of the Libellant any thing which could give her husband any reasonable cause for leaving her, but she always behaved to him, to the best of this deponents knowledge, as a wife should do … that the said Lawrence has not since his departure to the best of her knowledge and belief, furnished his wife with any thing for the maintenance of herself or her family: that the said Phœbe and her children had been supported by her mother a long time before he left them … that for some years before he left Philadelphia as aforesaid the said Lawrence was an idle lazy man, and did nothing for the support of his family: and this deponent saw him two or three times intoxicated very much, within a short time before he went away. But she knows nothing of his conduct since, as she has not seen him … that she has mentioned all that she recollects material to this Cause.”  Divorced 25 March 1802.  FHL film #1023002, images 478-496 (494), and 497-499 (497).

DICKS, John v. Mary.  Petition of John Dicks of the Borough of Chester, Chester Co., dated, affirmed, and filed 10 April 1786; married 14 June 1763 Mary CULIN; cohabited until 4 Nov. 1763; grounds: “when the said Mary without Provocation on the Part of the said John not only wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from the said John but also eloped with a certain William Foro and lived with the said Foro in a State of Adultery for a Number of years having by him the said Foro six Children during the Time of their Cohabitation ¶ And your Libellant further gives the Honorable the Court to know and be informed that the said Mary well knowing her Husband the said John Dicks to be in full Life did on the Twenty first day of November in the year our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty at the City of Philadelphia in Violation of her previous Vow enter into a second Marriage with a certain William Pearce alias Price with whom she actually lived as his Wife for some Time, but the said Pearce or Price being lost at Sea she the said Mary in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty one cohabited with a certain William Walter Humphries giving out that she had intermarried with the said Humphreys and hath continued to cohabit with him as his Wife ever since, being called by the Name of said Humphreys dwelling in his House and sleeping in the same Bed with him ¶ In as much then as the said Mary hath wilfully and maliciously without a reasonable Cause deserted her said Husband and absented herself from him upwards of Twenty two years, hath eloped and lived in open Adultery almost the whole of the said Time and entered into a second Marriage in Violation of her previous Vow, all which the Libellant expressly charges to be true ….”  Mary’s answer (undated): admits that they cohabited for several years and that she deserted him, but denies all else.  Divorced 2 April 1789.  FHL film #1023002, images 500-510 (502).

DISCAMPS, Sarah v. John.  Petition of Sarah Discamp (signed Sarah Discamps), by her next friend John Patterson, dated and sworn to at Philadelphia 22 Sept. 1803 and filed 23 Sept. 1803 at #8 Dec. Term 1803; married at Philadelphia Co. 15 April 1792; cohabited “untill the month of March 1802”; grounds: “the said John hath by cruel and barbarous treatment endangered the Life of your Libellant, and hath offered such gross indignaties [sic] to her person as to render her Life burthensom and her condition intolerable, and hath forced her to withdraw from her house and family [sic].”  FHL film #1023002, images 511-513 (511).

DIXON, Mary v. Patrick.  Petition of Mary Dixon (signed with her mark) “the wife of Patrick Dixon of [interlined word] Philadelphia County,” for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend William Davis, sworn to 12 Sept. 1804 and filed 13 Sept. 1804 at #1 Dec. Term 1804; married “sometime in the year 1778”; grounds: “he has repeatedly offered such indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable and life burthensome and has thereby forced her [next two words careted] to withdraw from his house and family – Also that he hath refused to provide any support or maintenance for her or her Children.”  FHL film #1023002, images 514-521 (519).

DODD, Mary Ann v. Dr. Robert J.  Petition of Mary Ann Dodd, late Mary Ann SCHYNER, by her next friend John Warr, dated and sworn to at Philadelphia 14 March and filed 17 March 1800 at #2 Sept. Term 1800 (copy of alias subpoena left 15 Dec. 1800 at Sign of Columbus in Franford, the Defendant’s last place of abode); married at Philadelphia 7 Feb. 1797; cohabited “until the month of August last”; grounds: “the said Mathias [careted name:] Robert from the said Month of August (from which time and [next five words inserted above the line, but without a carret] or the greater part thereof he and your Libellant hath lived seperate and apart from bed and board) and having before totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and given himself up to Lewd practices, and to the having Adulterous Conversation and intercourse with Lewd women, and more particularly that he [next word careted] the said Robert, on the second Day of March in the present Year with a certain woman named Charlotte Jones committed Adultery and so continued to Commit Adultery from which it is evident that the said Robert hath been Guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony on the part of the Libellant sworn to 12 Sept. 1800: Peter Adams, of the City of Philadelphia states “that he does not know Mary Ann Dodd, having never seen her but once, but that he has known the said Robert J. Dodd a year and an half or two years … that some time in the last winter he went with the said Robert J. Dodd to a house in Philadelphia to drink a bottle of Porter together, and the said Robert left the company of the deponent, and went into another room with [next word careted] following a girl whose name this deponent is not acquainted with, and this deponent afterwards going in to the room to see what had become of the said Robert, saw him lying with the said girl on a bed, and this deponent observed that the girl was lying under the said Robert, and that her clothes were up. … that he does not know any thing respecting any act of adultery committed by the said Robert J. Dodd, except what is related in the answer to the preceding Interrogatory. … that he knows nothing farther material to this cause.”  Testimony sworn to 21 March 1801: Michael Snyder, of the City of Philadelphia, states “that he is the Brother of the Libellant, and was present and saw her joined in marriage with Robert J. Dodd, the defendant, on the seventh day of February in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven.”   Divorced 21 March 1801.  FHL film #1023002, images 522-543 (528).

DOWNES – see DOWNS, Margaret v. Robert

DOWNEY, Terence v. Sarah.  Petition of Terence Downey dated at Philadelphia 20 March 1800, sworn to before a [Philadelphia] alderman that day and filed on or before 21 March 1800 (when a subpoena was awarded) at #3 Sept. Term 1800; married at St. Mary’s Church in the City of Philadelphia 3 July 1798 “to a certain Sarah RHOADS”; cohabited “until the Month of December last”; grounds: “the said Sarah from the said month of December– (from which time she, & your Libellant have lived separate, and apart from Bed, & Board) and having before totally alienated her affections from your Libellant, & given herself up to lewd practices, & to the having of Adulterous conversation, & intercourse with wicked men, hath in particular repeatedly committed Adultery with a certain Moses Costello.”  FHL film #1023002, images 550-555 (552).

DOWNS, Margaret v. Robert.  Petition of Margaret Downes (signed Margaret Downs) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, sworn to (as Margaret Dowes) before a Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas judge 15 Dec. 1789 and filed 7 Jan. 1790; married at Philadelphia Co. 14 May 1782; cohabited “untill the month of September last”; grounds: “the said Robert for these five years last past hath totally alienated his affections from your libellant and by cruel and barbarous Treatment hath endangered he Life and hath offered such Indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable and Life burthensome, and hath maliciously turned her at different times out of his house.”  FHL film #1023002, images 547-549 (547).  [See next entry.]

DOWNS, Margaret v. Robert.  Petition of Margaret Downes (signed Margaret Downs) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, sworn to (as Margaret Downes) at the City of Philadelphia 20 Sept. 1790 and filed 24 Sept. 1790; married at Philadelphia Co. [blank] May 1782; cohabited “from that time for a few Months afterwards”; grounds: “the said Robert for many years last past hath totally alienated his affections from your Libellant, and hath repeatedly assaulted and beat her in the most violent and outrageous manner and hath turned her out of doors, and by cruel and barbarous Treatment endangered her Life and offered such Indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable and life burthensome.”   Petition marked “Dec^r [17]91 n.b.f. vide [i.e., see] p. 391.”  FHL film #1023002, images 544-546 (544).

DUCOMB, Philip v. Catherine.  Petition of Philip Ducomb, “a Citizen of the common Wealth and County Aforesaid [i.e., Allegheny] and residing within the same,” sworn to there 13 May 1799 and filed 28 Oct. 1799 at #20 Dec. Term 1799; married [date and place not stated] Catherine MCLOCKLIN; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “during the said intermarriage the said Catherine did in repeted [sic] instances – commit the crime of Adultery [next four words careted] with a Daniel Davison and that she has willfully and maliciously absented [next word careted] herself from Your Petitioner – not only from these circumstances but from the general tenor of the said Catherine’s conduct – your Petitioner is impelled by the most dissagreeable nessessity to apply to your Honourable Court for redress …”  Testimony (undated) filed 9 Sept. 1800: Rev. John Taylor, aged about 43, Episcopal clergyman, states “I joined them together in marriage in the spring of the year 1798; Agnes Call (signed with her mark), aged 16, spinster, saw Catherine and Daniel Davidson in bed together; Agnes Kimberley; Richard Buchmaster (signed with his mark), aged 18, farmer, states that Mary’s “common place of residence is in the Northern Territories at her fathers”; Mary Hull (signed with her mark), aged 35, spinster, saw Catherine in bed with Robert Dawson and with John Wilkinson.  Divorced 16 March 1801.  FHL film #1023002, images 556-575 (574).

DUNLAP, Mary v. William.  Petition “of Walter Clark next friend of his Daughter Mary Dunlap on behalf of the said Mary,” [no jurat, and signed only by Walter Clark], filed 7 Dec. 1786; [place and date of marriage not stated]; grounds: “William Dunlap Husband of the said Mary hath turned his said Wife Out of Doors hath indangered her life by Evil and Barberous treatment hath offered such indignities to her person as to Render her life and condition intolarable and Burthesom and hath forced her to withdraw herself from his House and family.” Affidavit of Mary Dunlap sworn to in Northumberland Co. 8 Nov. 1786: “Personally came Before me the Subscriber one of Justices of the peace &c in and for said County Mary Dunlap of Whitedeer township in County aforesaid who Being Duely Sworn according to Law Doeth Depose and Say on her Sollam Oath Say That Her husband William Dunlap Some considerable time after they Ware Married upwards of a year he the said Husband having a Gun in his hand and in an Angry and Outrageous manner Said that if it were not for the Child that Was in her arms he Would blow her Brains Out. She at that time having her Child in her arms and at an other time gave her Several Strokes on the Side of her Head With his fist clensed, Which hurt her so as to Deafen, or prevent her of hearing at that time, and often times threatned to Kick her and With a Club of a stick over her head threatned to Strike her therewith and abuse her and one Saboth Night from his uncommon conduct in the family and Ill Natured behavioour and not Suffering any Light of fire or candle in the House She Was afraid of her Life, and that he Left her frequently Without any manner of sustainence of Food [interlined word] Save a little milk for Several Months Together Excepting some times a Loaf of Bread Which he Would bring from his Mother and that She Suffered in person by his Neglecting to provide the famely With the Necessarys of life, and One Sabath Day as She Was Reading in her Bible he Desired her to Lay by that Bible Or he Would throw it in the fire, and seemed in a great anger the Whole Day, and often Discharged her from the House and Desired her to be gon from about the House and at Length on the twenty fourth Day of August last in the afternoon of s^d Day he Turned her out of Doors by taking hold of her and Shoving her, or pushing her Out of the Door of thier then Dwelling House and amediately shut the Door and bid Her begon from about that house — and the facts contained in the petition Seting forth the above grievances are true to the Best of her Knowledge and Belief and the above s^d complaint is Not made Out of levity or by collution between meher; & My her said Husband William Dunlap for the mere purpose of Being freed from Each other but in Sincerety and truth for the causes Mentioned in the petition herewith presented.” Petition marked “no proceedings had.”  FHL film #1023002, images 576-579 (576).

DUNNING, Ann v. Dennis.  Petition of Ann Dunning, by her next friend William Keating, sworn to before a Philadelphia Alderman 17 July and filed 18 July 1798 at #364 Sept. Term 1798; married 4 Sept. 1789; cohabited until 15 Aug. 1795; grounds: “the said Dennis, from the said fifteenth day of August One thousand seven hundred and ninety five (from which time he and your Libellant have liv’d separate and apart from bed and board) having before that time totally alienated his affection from your Libellant, has given himself up to lewd practices and having adulterous conversation and intercourse with lewd women and more particularly, he the said Dennis, for the space of twelve months last past, hath lif’d at Southwark in the County of Philadelphia in open and avow’d adultery with a certain Hanna Jarvis, and yet doth continue to commit adultery with the said Hannah aforesaid: from all of which it is evident that the said Dennis hath been guilty of adultery.”  Ann’s deposition sworn to 28 March 1799: “Ann Dunning, being duly Sworn deposeth and Says that Dennis Dunning, the Defendant in the above cause her husband, is, to be best of her knowledge and belief possess’d of real and personal property to the value of more than Fifteen hundred Dollars — that the said Dennis owns a house and Lot in fourth Street between Plumb and Shippen Street which he the said Dennis declares he would not sell for Eight hundred Dollars, believing them to be worth more – that the said Dennis owns one other house and Lot in German Street between fourth and fifth Streets which the said Dennis values at One hundred and forty Pounds and one other Lot of ground Situate as this Deponent is informed Somewhere in Small[?] Street, the value whereof this Deponent does not know. ¶ This Deponent further declares that Since her Separation (nearly four years past,) from the said Dennis, which was occasioned by his cruel treatment of her, She has Supported herself entirely by her own industry, Saving a small house and Lot which the Said Dennis give this Deponent and which she was compel’d to dispose of for One hundred Pounds, which has been entirely expended by this Deponent for her support during two Severe indispositions and Saving nine Dollars which the Said Dennis paid in discharge of a debt contracted by this Deponent. And this Deponent further declares that she at this time owes no debts for which the Said Dennis can become liable except a debt of Sixteen Dollars and one of four Dollars, both of which this Deponent is endeavouring to discharge.”  Testimony sworn to 16 Feb. 1799: Richard Martin (signature page missing) states that Hannah Jarvis lives with him as his housekeeper and he has seen her in bed with Dennis; James Wood (signed with his mark) has seen them in bed together 200 times.  Divorced 29 March 1799.  FHL film #1023002, images 580-602 (594).

ECCLES, Mary v. James.  Petition of Mary Eccles for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, sworn to 30 Jan. and filed 2 Feb. 1815 as a “Petition for alimony”; married 7 April 1813; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said James Eccles, for a long time past, by cruel and barbarous treatment towards your petitioner, has rendered her condition intolerable, and thereby forced her to withdraw from his house. that the said James refuses to allow your petitioner a competent maintenance or support.”  FHL film #1023002, images 700-703 (702).

ENEFER, James v. Mary.  Petition of James Enefer “of the City of Philadelphia Mariner,” sworn to 24 May and filed 11 June 1802 at #197 Sept. Term 1802; married “about six years ago”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “sometime in the year One thousand Eight hundred and One the said Mary while your Libellant was absent on a Voyage to Canton in China committed adultery and was delivered of a Child which was not begotten by him Libellant but by some other Person – that the said Child was born upwards of eleven — Months after your Libellant had left Philadelphia, and the Said Mary Enefer has acknowledged that your Libellant was not the father of the Said Child.”  FHL film #1023002, images 704-708 (706).

ENGELMAN (also ENGLEMAN), Jacob v. Magdalen.  Petition of Jacob Engleman (signed Jacob Engelman), dated and sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 13 Jan. 1794 and filed 12 [sic] Jan. 1794; married on or about [blank] Dec. 1791 Magdalen HEMICH [or EMICH?]; cohabited “until [blank] in the Year of our Lord [1792]”; grounds: “when the said Magdalen Hemich was delivered of a Female Child, which the said Magdalen acknowledged to have been begotten by a certain Benjamin Bartholomew of Haycock Township Bucks County after which the said Magdalen left the House of your Libellant and in violation of her Marriage Vows hath repeatedly committed Adultery, and given herself up to Lewd practices and to having adulterous intercourse with Lewd and debauched Men and particularly that the said Magdalin hath repeatedly committed Adultery with a certain Daniel Diehl and since her intermarriage with your Libellant hath lived and still continues to live, in open Adultery with him the said Daniel and hath had since she left your Libellant a certain [next word careted] bastard Child begotten as this Libellant beleives by the said Daniel Diehl.”  Magdalena’s undated confession states that she also lived with Daniel Wiegners and with Josiah Dennis prior to living at William Diehl’s House.  Testimony of Jacob’s father Andreas Engelman of Upper Milford Twp., Northampton Co., dated 18 Aug. 1794: the parties were married by Rev. M. Frederick at Allentown 6 Sept. 1791, she gave birth to a female child about 9 weeks after her marriage, and to a male child by Daniel Diehl about 12 months ago in Haycock Twp.  Divorced 2 Sept. 1794.  FHL film #1023002, images 709-731 (713).

ERBEN/ERBIN, Margaret v. Adam.  Petition of Margaret Erben (signed with her mark), “wife of Adam Erben, late of the City of Philadelphia, by her brother and next friend Daniel Bickley,” sworn to 6 April 1789 and filed 14 April 1789; married 25 Dec. 1782; cohabited “from the time of said marriage”; grounds: “the Said Adam his plighted faith and marriage vows forgetting, hath for many years past totally alienated his affections from the libellant, giving himself up at many different times and places [next four words careted] since their said Marriage to adulterous practices, fellowship and correspondence with lewd and wicked women and to the having carnal adulterous conversation and dealing with the said wicked women, one or more of them in several different house of bad fame in the City of Philadelphia – And that the said Adam about adultery, and desertion about the month of August in the Year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and eighty seven, wholly withdrew himself from the bed of the libellant and having beaten her in a cruel manner turned her out of doors. That he the Said Adam continued the Same Adulterous courses until the month of September [next two words careted] then next when he absconded and left the libellant and [next word careted] three[?; or their?] children destitute and unprovided for and hath gone into Virginia as your libellant hath heard and verily believes. From all of which it is evident that the Said Adam hath been guilty of Adultery.”   Testimony taken at the City of Philadelphia 6 Jan. 1790:  Daniel Bickley, of the City of Philadelphia, grocer, aged 33 and upwards, states [1st interrogatory] “That Margaret Erben, the Libellant, is his sister, and that he hath known Adam Erben (with whom this Deponent went to School) for the space of fifteen years and upwards … [2] That the above named Libellant and the said Defendant were lawfully married in the presence of this Deponent at his father’s house in the Northern Liberties on the twenty first day of December in the year of our Lord One thousand seven Hundred and Eighty one, and this Deponent further answering this Interrogatory saith, That the said Libellant and the Defendant have always been reputed and considered by their neighbours and acquaintances as Husband and wife ever since their said marriage … [3] That he hath truly set forth in his answer to the preceding Interrogatory the time when the said Libellant and Defendant were intermarried. And this Deponent further answering this Interrogatory saith, That for the space of Four years after their said intermarriage the Libellant and the Defendant cohabited together in great peace and harmony, but at the end of the said four years the Defendant entirely changed his conduct towards the Libellant, whom this Deponent hath seen the said Defendant abuse beat and ill treat at various times in a cruel manner. And this Deponent saith, that the Libellant to the best of his knowledge and belief never gave the Defendant any provocation or real and just cause whatsoever for using her in the manner by this Deponent above mentioned, but that the Defendant, addicting himself to the frequent and excessive use of strong liquors, has frequently returned to his house late at night, and wantonly turned the Libellant out of doors, who has thereupon come to this Deponent’s house for shelter and protection. And this Deponent saith that these outrages became so frequent, that he advised the Libellant to complain thereof to a Justice of the Peace, that the Libellant accordingly complained thereof to Squire Masters, who thereupon bonded[?] the Defendant to appear and answer the same at the Court of Quarter Sessions (as this Deponent believes) but being persuaded by her friends and the intercessions of the friends of the Defendant, the said Libellant was induced to Settle the same amicably before the meeting of the said Court. And this Deponent further saith, That the said Defendants said cruel and abusive conduct towards the Libellant continued for the space of three years, during which time he neglected his business, squandered and wasted all his property, and was almost constantly employed it gaming and frequenting Bawdy houses, of which he would often make mention to this Deponent, naming the lewd women with whom he had been engaged in a criminal adulterous intercourse And this Deponent further saith, that by these immoral courses he verily believes the said Defendant contracted a certain infamous and loathsome disorder, for besides that the Defendant confessed the same to this Deponent, this Deponent hath been often so informed by Doctor Albertus Shilack, who curded him thereof. And this Deponent further saith, That the Defendant in consequence of his extravagance and misconduct aforesaid ran greatly into debt, and that sometime in September One thousand Seven Hundred & Eighty Seven all his goods and Household furniture were taken & sold by virtue of an Execution against him, and his House and Stihs[?] and all his property were afterwards sold by virtue of other Executions against. And this Deponent saith that when the said goods and Household furniture were taken and sold as aforesaid, the said Libellant came to this Deponents House, and has ever since that time lived with some of her own relatives, or been employed in procuring her subsistence by as a wet[?] wife, without receiving any support, assistance or supply whatsoever from the said Defendant [4] this Deponent saith, That when the goods and Household furniture of the Defendant were taken and sold, as is mentioned in the answer to the next preceding Interrogatory, the said Defendant withdrew himself from the bed of the Libellant, and hath never since as this Deponent most firmly believes cohabited with the said Libellant or contributed to her maintenance and support, but, on the contrary he said Defendant hath left to the said Libellant the whole labour and charge of three children which were borne unto the said Libellant before he withdrew himself from her as aforesaid. And this Deponent further answering this Interrogatory saith, that in his answer to the fourth Interrogatory he hath related his knowledge touching the lewd courses of the Defendant before he withdrew himself form the bed of the Libellant as aforesaid, but he doth not know, nor hath he heard anything of the Defendant since that time [5] this Deponent saith, That he hath already answered the same in his [next three words careted] answer to the third Interrogatory. [6] this Deponent saith, That in his answers to the third and fourth Interrogatories, he hath already specified the time when the said Defendant wholly withdrew himself from the family of the said Libellant, and refused to contribute to her support and maintenance: And this Deponent saith, that he doth not know where the said Defendant now is. [7] this Deponent saith, that he doth not remember any other matter or thing that is already set forth in his answers to the preceding Interrogatories, which may be of assistance to the Libellant in this Suit”; Albertus Shilak (signed Albartus Shilack)), of the Northern District of the City of Philadelphia, surgeon, aged 47 [or 57?] years and upwards, [1] “That he hath known the Defendant about sixteen years, and the Libellant he hath known about nine years. [2] That he does not positively know that the said Parties are married, but they have been reputed and considered as Husband & wife for the space of about nine years past, by all their neighbours, and acquaintance [3] That he doth not know anything touching the contents thereof [4] That he is unable to make any answer thereunto, save what is hereinafter set forth in his answer to the fifth Interrogatory; and that eh Defendant withdrew from the Society of the Libellant in August or September 1787 [5] That on the first day of August in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty xix, the Defendant applied to his Deponent, to cure the said Defendant of a venereal desease, which he informed this Deponent was contracted from a certain Mary Cress. And this Deponent saith that upon examining the said Defendant, he found the said Defendant infected with a very[ very virulent chanara, which terminated in a bubo venoris, that while he was in that state any cohabitation with him must have been exceedingly dangerous, and that he continued in the disorder for about the space of six weeks, when the cure was effected. And this Deponent saith, That he enjoined the Defendant not to cohabit with his wife during the continuance of the said disorder, and warned the Libellant of her danger in permitting it, in consequence of which warning this Deponent believes the said Libellant was saved from the infection. [6] that he is unable to make any other answer than is set forth in his answer to the third Interrogatory [7] That he doth not know any other matter or thing that can be of assistance to the Libellant in this Suit.”  Divorced 2 Jan. 1790.  FHL film #1023002, images 732-759 (757).

ERWIN, see IRWIN, Robert v. Catharine, below.

EVANS, Margaret v. Robert.  Petition of Margaret Evans, who “was born & hath ever resided in the State of Pennsylvania,” by her next friend Isaac Rick, dated and sworn to 4 April 1793 (subpoena dated 1 April 1793); married, by, on or about 4 Feb. 1788, to “Robert Evans then of Bucks County by the reverend David Loughborough”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “in the Month of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & Eighty nine your Libellant’s s^d Husband without any just Cause deserted & wholly abandoned her & hath removed to Virginia & there hath married another Woman or liveth with the s^d Woman in a State of Adultery.”  Testimony taken 17 March 1794: Ezra Evans [unsigned], in answer to seven interrogatories, states [1] “that he has known Robert Evans the Defendant Ever since he was born, and that he has known Margaret Evans the Plaintiff his Wife ever since they were Married which was about 6 or 7 years ago. [2] He saith that he believes Robert Evans now lives in Frederick County in Virginia and that he saw him living there in the year 1792. [3] He saith that he was in Virginia in Frederick County in the year 1792. [3 sic] He saith that he seen and conversed with Robert Evans the Defendant in Virginia in the Month of November 1792. [4] He saith that when he saw Robert Evans the Defend^t in Virginia in November 1792 that he the said Deponent saw a Woman ins^d Robert Evans House whome he called his Wife and that he Cohabited with her as such, and she then resided in the House with him. [5] He saith that Elijah Britain told him in Frederick County in Virginia in November 1792. that he was at the Weding [sic] of Robert Evans the Defendant and Saw him Married to the aforesaid Woman he called his Wife [6] He saith that he knew Robert Evans the Defend^t went away and lift his Wife Margaret Evans the Defend^t the Plaintiff and has not returned to her since [7] He saith that Robert Evans the Defend^t has been absent from his Wife Margaret Evans the Plaintiff for the space of four years last fall. [8] He saith that further he the Deponent knoweth not.”  Petition marked “Quæ if Ended vide Bucks Co^y N. P. | Docq^t Vol. 2 pa^e 48.49.”  FHL film #1023002, images 760-779 (762).

EVANS, Susannah v. William.  Petition of Susannah Chevalier Evans (signed with her mark), who “was born, educated, and has ever since lived and resided in the City of Philadelphia,” by her next friends Thomas Chevalier and William Buchanan, sworn to before the Chief Justice 26 Sept. and filed 27 Sept. 1792; “married in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty four”; cohabited “for some time”; grounds: “the said William Evans having wilfully and maliciously absented himself from your Petitioner, from about two Months after they were married without any reasonable Cause, went into the State of New Jersey and then and there was married to Ann Weave on the tenth Day of March One thousand seven hundred and Ninety.”  Certificates (printed form and handwritten, as Exhibits C and B, respectively), dated 20 Sept. 1792, of Jonathan Jarman, minister, stating that William Evans, cordw[a]iner or shoemaker, and Anne Weave [“Anne Wave” on Exhibit C], both of the Cumberland Co., New Jersey, were married on 10 March 1790.  Testimony taken at the City of Philadelphia 15 March 1793: Susanna Plum, “of the City of Philadelphia, widower [sic]” (signed with her mark), in answer to the numbered interrogatories, states [1] “That she has known the Libellant about and from her birth, and the Defendant about the term of seven years. [2] That She was present when the Libellant and Defendant were married, that the ceremony was performed by the Rev^d W Duffield, in La–tra[?] Court in the City of Philadelphia, sometime in the month of April, but the year she cannot recollect. [3] That She does not believe the Libellant and the Defendant lived together longer than three months after their marriage, that during that time He treated her very ill, beat her, and otherwise abused her, that he never paid the rent of the house in which they lived, nor supplied her with necessary food, that a very short time after the marriage he was charged with being the father of a bastard child, that he was sent to goal upon a charge of Larceny; and [entire next line interlined] and being convicted he escaped from his sentence, and that the Libellant was obliged to part with a great portion of her clothing to prevent his being carried to goal on the charge of bastardy. This [changed from ‘That’] Deponent cannot precisely recollect when the Defendant left the Libellant, but she believes it is upwards of five years ago, & ever since he has been absent from her. [4] That she has been informed and verily believes that since the marriage of the Libellant and Defendant, as above stated, the Defendant has married another woman in the State of New Jersey, That she does not know when such last mentioned marriage took place, but has heard and believes that the name maiden name of the second wife was Nancy Wave, and that it never was reported that the Libellant was dead. [5] That the Libellant was always and honest and industrious woman, labouring to support herself and an infant child, left by the said Defendant, that she has suffered great distress, and further this Deponent cannot say.”  Divorced 11 April 1793.  FHL film #1023002, images 780-791 (782).

EVERLY, Jane v. Jacob,   Petition (undated) of Jane Everly for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend Isaac Morton, sworn to before the Chief Justice 15 July 1801 and filed that day at #187 Sept. Term 1801; “on or about the fourth day of JulyAugust in the year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and ninety three at the County of Philadelphia was married to a certain Jacob Everly, an Hatter, and immediately after lived and cohabited with him save and except at such times when for his own purposes he thought proper to withdraw himself from her”; grounds: “altho by their mutual vows and faith plighted to each other they were reciprocally bound to a strict adherence to each other and to render to each other mutual good offices for their comfortable accommodation and support as well as for the Education and maintenance of the three children with which Providence has blessed them, yet so it is, that the said Jacob for more than five years past hath totally alienated his affections from his said wife and hath given himself up to idle practices, to gaming and Intoxication and by cruel and barbarous treatment hath endangered her life and rendered her Condition intolerable and hath also aban maliciously abandoned his family.”  FHL film #1023002, images 792-794 (792).

EWALD/EWALT, Nancy v. Benjamin (called “Frederick” on the cover of the petition).  Petition “of Nancy Bunthalter Ewald [signed Ann Ewlt] by her mother next friend and Mother and natural Guardian Catharine Bunthaler,” sworn to before in Philadelphia Co. before a common pleas associate judge 9 Sept. 1801 and filed 10 Sept. 1801 at #2 Dec. Term 1801 (subpoena returned as not found); married 5 May 1796; cohabited until 5 July 1796; grounds: “That the said Benjamin from the said fifth day of July hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Nancy and such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four years and more, without any just or reasonable cause, and yet doth continue to absent himself from her the said Nancy.”  FHL film #1023002, images 795-799 (798).

FEINAUER, Joseph v. Mary.  Petition of Joseph Feinauer, signed (in German script) and sworn to 26 July 1797 and filed the same day at #598 Sept. Term 1797; married 27 March 1761 “at Philadelphia … a certain Mary WILLIAMS”; cohabited “until about three years ago”; grounds: “that for three years past the said Mary hath totally alienated her affections from your Libellant and given herself up to lewd practices and to the having of adulterous conversation and intercourse with other Men, particularly with a certain Benjamin West from all which it is evident that she the said Mary hath been guilty of Adultery.”  Petition marked “quæ. if any[?] proceedings had.”  FHL film #1023002, images 801-803 (801).

FEELY (also FEELEY), Sarah v. Thomas.  Petition of Sarah Feely, by her next friend René Rhuillier, sworn to before the Chief Justice [date not stated] and filed 26 Feb. 1802 at #151 March Term 1802; married New York City 14 June 1796; cohabited until 13 Feb. 1798; grounds: “the said Thomas from the thirteenth day of February in the year aforesaid wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Sarah and such desertion and absence has persisted in for the term of four years and more without any just or reasonable cause, and yet doth continue to absent himself from her the said Sarah.”  Testimony taken 18 May 1802: Thomas Hurley, of the City of Philadelphia, paper-hanging manufacturer, states that on 10 Feb. 1798, the defendant told him “that he meant to leave the United States and leave his wife behind … [and] that he meant to go to Drogheda in Ireland … because he was not able to maintain her”; John M. Smith, of the City of Philadelphia, house-carpenter, states that on 5 May 1798 “Mr. D[?] Carpentier, for whom the said Sarah then kept house, moved into a house belonging to the Affiant[’]s Father.”  Divorced 6 Sept. 1802.  FHL film #1023002, images 804-820 (816).

FERRAN, Niel v. Mary.  Petition of Niel Ferran (signed with his mark), of Philadelphia Co., sworn to before a [Philadelphia] alderman 2 Aug. and filed 10 Aug. 1814; married 2 April 1800; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “although by the Laws of God as well as by the mutual vows plighted to each other, they were bound to that chastity which ought to be inseperable from the marriage vow, [she] hath for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery.”  FHL film #1023002, images 821-825 (823).

FISCHER/FISHER, Phœbe [nickname for Philippina?; see next entry] v. Michael.  Petition of Phœbe Fisher, “Wife of Michael Fisher late of Heidelberg Township in the County of Berks in the same State [Pa.] yeoman,” by her next friends Christian Gernard, Daniel Hähn, Daniel Morris, and George Seitz (all signing in German script), sworn to 18 Nov. and filed by 21 Nov. 1788 when a subpoena was issued to Michael; grounds: “your Petitioners said husband having assaulted and beaten her with great Cruelty she for her safety was compelled to prosecute him at the Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace holden at Reading for the said County in August last, that shortly after her said husband fled in the Night from the said County abandoning your Petitioner and carrying with him a Woman of the name of Elizabeth Walburn  That he has since that time been seen in bed with the said Woman at Baltimore in Maryland & lives with her in Adultery as she has been credibly informed and verily believes.”  Petition marked “Sep. 95 n b f.” [see next entry for their divorce].  FHL film #1023002, images 851-856 (851).

FISCHER/FISHER, Philippina v. Michael.  Petition of Philippina Fisher (signed with her mark), “Wife of Michael Fisher late of the Township of Heidelberg in the County of Berks in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by her next friend John Christian Gernard” (signing in German script Christian Gernard as her next friend), signed and sworn to in Berks Co. on 2 Jan. 1790 and filed 25 Feb. 1790, and stating “[t]hat your Petitioner is the Daughter of James Davis late of Cumru Township in the County afsd Farmer deceased[,] that she at the Age of fifteen years was joined in the holy bonds of Matrimony with the said Michael Fisher on the seventeenth day of March in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & Eighty Eight by the Rev^d John William Boos Minister of the Gospel of the Reformed Church at Reading in Pennsylvania  that they cohabited as man and wife about four Months  that she during that period demeaned herself as a dutiful Wife to her husband that notwithstanding this Behaviour on her part he most cruelly beat her and confined her closely for three days and immediately cohabited with a certain Elizabeth Walbery who he brought to his House in Heidelberg Township– in a few [next word careted] weeks after he entirely deserted your petitioner and has never since cohabited with your petitioner that he then went off from this County with the said Elizabeth Walbery and in the Month ofFall of [blank] in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty Eight committed Adultery with the said Elizabeth at Baltimore  that the said Michael Fisher her husband has totally abandoned her and left her without any Maintenance or Support.”  Certificate of J. W. Boos, V.D.M., (in German, with English translation) states the he married Michael Fischer and Philippina DEBIS [Davis?] at Reading on 17 March 1788.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 3 Jan. 1791: Sebastian Miller (signed in German script), of Montgomery Twp., Reading Co. [sic], farmer, states that the certificate appears to be in the handwriting of Rev. Boos; Daniel Haines (signed in German script, Daniel Hähn), of Heidelberg Twp. farmer, aged 32 years and upwards; and Christian Gernart (signed in German script Christian Gernard, of Montgomery Twp., Reading Co. [sic], farmer, aged 44 years.   Divorced 3 Jan. 1791.  FHL film #1023002, images 826-850 (848).

FISS, Esther v. Thomas.  Petition of “Esther Fiss of the City of Philadelphia, wife of Thomas Fiss late of the same city by her next friend Jeremiah Harrison,” affirmed before the Chief Justice 3 June 1798 and filed 4 July 1798; married “on the first day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety two”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “her said husband hath for more than four years past wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself without any reasonable cause from your Petitioner and Libellant and committed adultery with divers lewd women whose names are to your Libellant unknown and in addition thereto hath knowingly entered into a second marriage in violation of the previous vow which he had made to your Petitioner and Libellant.”  FHL film #1023002, images 857-861 (859).

FLANIGAN (also FLANAGAN), John v. Margarett.  Petition of John Flenagan (Flanagan on the cover; signed John Flanigan) “of Southwork in the County of Philadelphia,” dated at Philadelphia 13 Dec. 1796, sworn to in open court 14 Dec. 1796, and filed that day; married one Margarett McMASTERS in Philadelphia Co. on 22 Oct. 1782; cohabited until “the beginning of the month of October last past”; grounds: “the said Margarett from and since the month of July in the Year of Our Lrd seventeen hundred and ninety five (being totally alienated in her affections to your Libellant) hath given herself up to, and become conversant in, the most lewd practices, & become addicted to an Adulterous conversation with lewd and unchaste Men: And from and since the last mentioned month the said Margarett has been accustomed (against the assent of your Libellant & to the utter neglect of his Children & her domestic duties) to haunt and to frequent houses of ill fame and reputation in and near to the City of Philadelphia where Women of ill fame & of dissolute characters resort, and are kept for the purposes of a lascivious & criminal connection with [next line] with the male Sex. And the said Margarett being there found in houses of the aforesaid description, there to remain drinking until She has become deeply intoxicated & then to have and to repeat her adulterous connections with divers persons, carnally – knowing the same. And more [next word careted] particularly that the said Margarett between the month of July aforesaid in the Year of our Lord seventeen hundred & ninety five and the first of October in the Year seventeen hundred & ninety six did at divers times in the County aforesaid commit adultery with One Patrick M^cNeal  And in fact, your Libellant further avers that the said Margarett did for the space of nine Months in Succession, commencing at first [next word careted] day of July seventeen hundred & ninety five, live in a State of Open adultery with the said M^cNeal [next two words careted]. And also [see attached sheet]  From all of which it is evident that the said Margarett has been guilty of adultery. [on attached sheet:] Also that the said Margarett did in the Year seventeen hundred & ninety six, between the months of July and December November next following in the last mentioned year, further commit adultery with one Thomas Moore.”  Petition marked “quæ. if any proceedings had.”  FHL film #1023002, images 862-866 (862).

FLINN, Mary v Richard.  Petition of Mary Flinn, by her next friend John Martin, sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 23 Sept. and filed 24 Sept. 1795 (subpoena notes that “dft will be found at John Miller’s No Second street N[orthern] Liberties”); married at the City of Philadelphia 8 Nov. 1793; cohabited until “the month of April last”; grounds: “the said Richard from the Said Month of April last, from which time he and your Libellant hath lived Separate and apart from bed and board and having before totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and given himself up to Lewd practices and to the having adulterous conversation and intercourse with Lewd women and more particularly that he the Said Richard Flinn for the space of six months last past hath lived in the County of Philadelphia in open and avowed adultery with a certain Catherine Cole and yet doth continue to commit adultery with her the Said Catherine, from all which it is evident that the Said Richard hath been guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 29 March 1796: John Flannaghan (signed John Flanagan) of the City of Philadelphia, printer, aged 21 and upwards, who understood that Richard was courting Catharine Cole, the daughter-in-law of a person by the name of Millis living at Campertown near Philadelphia, and he accompanied them along with his wife (to whom he was not then married) to Germantown where they were married by a Presbyterian minister, and heard from Alexander Scott that they went to the West Indies; Hannah Flannagan (signed with her mark), wife of John.  Divorced 6 April 1796.  FHL film #1023003, images 867-881 (872).

FOLTZ, George v. Margaret.  Petition of George Foltz “of the County of Northampton in the said State,” dated at Easton 12 April 1797, sworn to that day at Northampton Co., and filed at #162 Sept. Term 1797; [marriage place and date and period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “about Eight Years ago Margaret Foltz the Wife of your Petitioner did wilfully and maliciously desert her said husband without any reasonable cause and hath continued absent ever since and that for about Nine Months previous to the said Margarets so deserting your Petitioner she obstinately refused to cohabit with him as Man and Wife.”  Petition marked “Jan^y 1803 n.b.f.”  FHL film #1023002, images 882-885 (884).

FOOT, Mary v. James.  Petition of Mary Foot (signed Mary Crawford Foot, with her mark), dated at Philadelphia 5 July, sworn to in open court 6 July 1787, and read and subpoena awarded that day; married in Philadelphia Co. 24 Dec. 1781; cohabited “from that time until the present”; grounds: “the said James Foot since the month of May in the year one thousand seven hundred eighty two hath totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and given himself up to lewd and vicious Company, and by Cruel and barbarous Treatment hath endangered the Life of your Libellant and hath offered such Indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable, and hath repeatedly assaulted, beat and abused her and by a continued series of Intemperance and Intoxication squandered away and destroyed all the [illegible interlined words] fruits of her honest Industry and renderd [next word careted] vain every attempt made by your Libellant to maintain herself and family with Conveniences or affluence, and openly boasted of adulterous Conversation and Intercourse with women of the most aboned[?; abandoned?] lives and Character.”  Answer dated and filed 5 Oct. 1787: acknowledges marrying in month of Dec. 1781, but denies ever beating or deserting her or alienating his affection, and has offered to be reconciled, which she refuses.  Petition marked “Sep[t. 17]91 n.b.f.  pa[ge]. 85.”  FHL film #1023002, images 886-891 (886).

FORDNEY, Elizabeth v. Francis.  Petition of Elizabeth Fordney (signed with her mark) of Lancaster, by her next friend Matthias Young, sworn to before a Supreme Court justice 28 Nov. 1803 and filed 5 Dec. 1803 at #136 Dec. Term 1803 (Francis served by publication); married “about twenty seven years ago, to a certain Francis Forndey then of the Borough of Lancaster, Skin Dresser”; cohabited for “about two years”; grounds: “the said Francis, without any reasonable cause given by the Libellant, deserted her, but returned in about four or five years to the best of the libellants knowledge, & again cohabited with her about a year, when he again willfully & maliciously deserted the Libellant without any reasonable cause, & without leaving her any support or maintenance, & hath continued to absent himself from the said Libellant ever since, now upwards of eighteen years  That the place of the residence of the said Francis is entirely unknown to the said Libellant, who has ever since supported herself by her own Industry, without any assistance from the said Francis.”  Testimony taken 22 Feb. 1804: Peter Miller, of the Borough of Lancaster, states that the parties were married “before the Revolutionary War”; John Brenniman (signed Johann Breneman[?]).  Divorced 21 March 1804.  FHL film 1023002, images 892-908 (904); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 23-24.

FOUSSATT, John William v. Anne.  Petition of John William Foussatt (signed J. W. Foussatt), “of the city of Philadelphia, merchant,” and a naturalized citizen of Pennsylvania since January 1799, “residing within the said City of Philadelphia, where he has his fixed & permanent domicile,” sworn to before an associate judge of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on 30 Oct. 1804, and filed 5 Nov. 1804 at #93 Dec. Term 1804; married in 1789 “at Jeremie, in the Island of S^t Domingo [i.e., Jérémie, Dominican Republic], with Anne TEISSOYRE, widow (born HENNEQUEZ, and Shortly afterwards in consequence of the Civil commotions of that Island emigrated with her to the United States, and after remaining some time in the State of Massachusetts came about the latter end of the year one thousand Seven hundred and ninety five to reside in the City of Philadelphia where your Petitioner has resided ever Since.”; grounds: “the said Anne, wife of this Libellant not regarding her marriage vow, nor regarding your Petitioners domestic peace & comfort, gave herself up to intemperance & lewdness, & committed the Crime of adultery with one John Page, in so open & public a manner that she received and entertained him day and night in this Libellants house, while this said Libellant was absent from this City on his lawful business.  That the consequence of Such immoral & Scandalous conduct on the part of this Libellant’s said wife, was a separation between them, which took place in the year one thousand Seven hundred and ninety Eight, & they have lived Separately and apart from each other ever Since.”  Testimony taken 21 Feb. 1805: John F. Dumas, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, states that he saw John Page at the Libellant’s house while the Libellant was away, and that Anne went to France in August 1798 and never returned; Charles LeRoy, of the City of Philadelphia; and Claudius Berniand.  Divorced 15 March 1805.  FHL film #1023002, images 909-926 (906).

FRANCE, Catherine v. John.  Petition of Catherine France (signed with her mark) for divorce a from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Peter Winn, sworn to on 9 Dec. 1803 before the Mayor at Philadelphia Co. and filed 10 Dec. 1803 at #151-152 Dec. Term 1803; married in the City and County of Philadelphia 6 Oct. 1791; cohabited “untill the Month of March One thousand eight hundred and One”; grounds: “the said John hath Offered such indignities by maiming and abusing her Person as to render her Life in danger and burthersome [sic], and her condition intollerable [sic], and hath forced your Libellant to withdraw from his House and family at all hours of [next word careted] the Night.”  Testimony taken 22 March 1804: Henry Armbruster of the Northern Liberties, tavern keeper, states that when John did work it was at carling and draying; Mary Armbruster of the City of Philadelphi, who lived near them; William Cummings of the City of Philadelphia, hatter, who “lives near the Parties … in the same house with Mary Armbruster, who is [his] mother-in-law.”  Divorced from bed & board 22 March 1804.  FHL film #1023002, images 927-942 (940).

FRENCH, Abigail v. William.  Petition of Abigail French, “Wife of William French of the City of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Anthony Fanner, dated and sworn to at Philadelphia 14 Feb. 1801, and filed the same day at #100 March Term 1801; married 25 Dec. 1795, “and for more than two years last past lived and resided in the City of Philadelphia”; grounds: “the said William hath maliciously turned your petitioner out of Doors, and by cruel & barbarous treatment endangered her life and offered such indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable.”  FHL film #1023002, images 943-946 (945).

FRIDAY, Margaret v. Henry.  Petition of Margaret Friday (signed in German script Margreta Fride), of the City of Philadelphia, by her next friend George Justice, dated, sworn to, and filed 16 July 1789 (subpoena issued to Henry “late of the City of Philadelphia Yeoman”); married “about the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight”; cohabited “untill the sometime in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventyeighty five”; grounds: “the said Henry [interlined word] since their intermarriage as aforesaid hath frequently beat & ill treated your Petitioner and particularly in the year of our Lord [interlined word] One thousand seven hundred and eighty five aforesaid when he violently beat your Petitioner & threatened to take her life which he would probably have affected but for the interposition of some of their Neighbours – That the said Henry Friday from the [blank] day of [blank] in the year aforesaid and long before in violation of his duty & marriage vows hath alienated his affections from your Libellant and hath repeatedly committed adultery with [next two words careted] a certain Ann Maria Geiger and hath given himself up to lewd Practices and to the having adulterous conversation and intercourse with lewd and debauched Woman.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 4 and 7 Jan. 1790, respectively: Barbara Lent (signed with her mark) of the City of Philadelphia, widow, aged 35 and upwards, states that the parties lived in part of her house about three years ago, when she “procured him to be committed to the work house”; William Baker (signed with his mark), of the Northern Liberties of the City of Philadelphia, mason, aged 27 and upwards, states that Henry represented Anna Maria Geiger to be his wife.  Divorced 2 Jan. 1790.  FHL film #1023003, images 947-968 (960).

FRYDAY – see FRIDAY

GALLACHER – see GALLEGHER, below

GALLEGHER, Leah v. Francis.  Petition of Leah Gallacher (signed Leah Gallegher), “wife of Francis Gallacher late of the Borough of Lancaster in the County of Lancaster schoolmaster,” by her next friend William Armstrong, dated and sworn to (as Leah Gallacher) in Lancaster Co. 1 Oct. 1802 and filed 26 Oct. 1802 at #42 Dec. Term 1802 (served by proclamation); married “about eleven years since”; cohabited “until 9 or 10 March last”; grounds: “during all that period she never knew him as a man. That from that circumstance accompanied by various other circumstances She verily believes the said Francis Gallacher to have been naturally impotent & incapable of provocation from the time of their intermarriage & that he still continues to be so.”  Testimony taken in Mifflin County on interrogatories, sworn to 29 Sept. 1803: George Bratton states that [1] “He Knew them Both more than ten Years Ago [2] Knew they lived Nine Years or more as Man & Wife Until the beginning of the Year 1802. And never knew of their having any children [3] that he felt the Privy Parts of Francis Gallagher affores^d and verrily believes him to be without Testicles.”  FHL film #1023003, images 5-19 (7); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 16-17.

GAMBLE, James v. Elizabeth.  Petition of James Gamble filed on or before 4 Dec. 1794 (when a subpoena was awarded) [missing from microfilmed file] (served by publication and proclamation).  Testimony on interrogatories certified 14 Jan. 1795: James Greer states [1] “That he was well aquainted with the Plaintiff and defendant above named. [2] That the defendant left her Husband James Gamble in the Month of December 1789. And went to Ireland and remained seperate from her Husband since that time [3] That he heard the Defendant Elizabeth Gamble say some time before she went to Ireland that she would go & not remain with her Husband.” Testimony on interrogatories certified 8 April 1795: William White states [1] That he is well aquainted with the Plaintiff James Gamble and was aquainted with the defendant Elizabeth Gamble before she went to Ireland. [2] He knows that the defendant Elizabeth Gamble hath seperated herself from her Husband James Gamble Five Years past last December at which time she left him & went to Ireland & hath remained seperate from him since that time. [3] That he knows that the defendant Elizabeth Gamble left her Husband Two or Three Years prior to the time she left him last, and went to New Castle with an Intention of then going to Ireland That after that, she returned and staid with her Husband Two or Three Years & then left him & went to Ireland. He further saith that he heard the defendant Elizabeth Gamble say before she went away That she did not like this Country & would not live or stay in it.”;  Col. James Morrison states [1] “that he is well aquainted with the Plaintiff James Gamble & was well aquainted with the defendant Elizabeth Gamble before she left this Country. [2] That he knows that the defendant Eliz^th Gamble hath separated herself from her Husband James Gamble Five Years past last Fall at which time she left him and went to Ireland & hath lived seperate from him since that time. [3] he knows that Elizabeth Gamble had left her Husband for Some time about Seven or Eight Years ago & then returned & lived with her Husband Untill the time above Mentioned, when she left him, And hath lived seperate ever since, & further saith that he has several times heard the Defendant Eliz^th Gamble say that she would not stay in this County but would leave her Husband & go to Ireland. & this deponent also says that he Accompanied the said Eliz^th as far as New Castle when she was agoing & Upon their Journey there, she appeared determined to seperate herself & go to Ireland.”  Divorced 6 April 1795.  FHL film #1023003, images 20-43; abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 7-8.

GARDEN, Joanna v. John.  Petition of Joanna Garden of Allegheny Co. for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Andrew Robertson, sworn to in Allegheny Co. 26 April 1799 and filed 29 June 1799 at #211 Sept. Term 1799; [date and place of marriage, and length of cohabitation, not stated]; grounds: “That John Garden, the husband of her the said Joanna, hath turned her the said Joanna, out of Doors, & by cruel & barbarous treatment, hath endangered her life, and offered such indignities, to her person, as to render her condition, intolerable, and life burthensome, and thereby forced her to withdraw, from his house, and family.”  Petition marked “May 1803 n.b.f.”  FHL film #1023003, images 60-66 (64).

GARDNER, George v. Margaret.  Petition of George Gardner, the younger [“Junior” on some interrogatories] (signed in German script Georg Gärtner), “of the Borough of Reading in the County of Berks,” sworn to in Berks Co. 11 Feb. 1797 and filed by 18 Feb. 1797 (when a subpoena was awarded; 21 Feb. 1797 according to the cover) at #292 March Term 1797; married “about seven Years ago” Margaret FOLTZ, “who was then a single woman”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Margaret within a year last past has committed many Acts of Adultery, some of which were committed in a very shameless and almost public Manner.”  Testimony taken 9 March 1799 (unsigned): Eva Till, wife of Wm. Till, tanner & currier in Reading, states that Margaret “lives in the House with my Family,” where she is visited by Christian Madera, who is keeper of the Goal [jail] in Reading (where she slept with him), and married; Elizabeth Leitheiser, wife of Hartman Leitheiser, Lieutenant in the U.S.Army, who lived with Margaret about 2½ years ago; Ann Maria Ulrick, wife of Philip Ulrick, labourer of Reading; and Mary Till, of Reading, spinster, states that Margaret rented a room in the house of her father, Wm. Till, in the Borough of Reading.  Divorced 27 March 1799.  FHL film #1023003, images 44-59 (48).

GÄRTNER – see GARDNER, above

GARRETT, Elizabeth v. John.  Petition of Elizabeth Garrett, “wife of John Garrett by of the City of Philadelphia,” by her next friend Andrew Tybout, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 13 Nov. 1803 and filed the same day at #97 Dec. Term 1802; married “many years since”; grounds: “he hath for more than four years now[?] last past committed wilful and malicious desertion and absence without a reasonable cause from your Petitioner and Libellant.”  Amendment to petition filed 22 June 1803 adds grounds of adultery with Hester Palmer on 10 June 1799 “and divers other times” as grounds for divorce.  Defendant’s answer affirmed and filed 12 March 1803 admits marrying Elizabeth “many years ago,” but denies deserting her, and requests trial by a Delaware jury.  Defendant’s Additional Answer dated and filed 13 Dec. 1803 again denies committing “adultery with the said Hester Palmer or with any other woman,” and charges the Plaintiff with adultery with Benjamin Duffield at Philadelphia in 1799.  Elizabeth’s replication (undated, with the filing date interlined) “states that she is not guilty of the adultery charged upon[?] by the Defend^t … and … denies that she admitted or rec^d the s^d Def^t into her conjugal society and embraces or was reconciled to him.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 12 March 1803: Matthew Jones, of the City of Philadelphia, brother to Elizabeth, states that Elizabeth lived with her father, William Jones, in the City of Philadelphia, “until his death … a few months ago”; Lucy Cox [Coxe on the copy], of the City of Philadelphia, states that Elizabeth since her father’s death has lived with her sister [unnamed], and mentions “the sister of John Garrett and the step-brother of Elizabeth Garrett”; Prudence Jones (signed with her mark), of the City of Philadelphia, “a black woman,” aged 30 and upwards, who was present at their marriage, “lived with them about three years, and left their service about seven years ago, but was often at their house afterwards”; Rachel Eyres (signed with her mark), “a black woman,” aged 42 “or thereabouts,” who has known Elizabeth since she was a child, and lived with her father William Jones until about 1795 “when he gave her her freedom.”  Testimony affirmed 21 and 24 March and filed 23 March [sic] 1803: Walter Lyle, of the district of Southwork, blacksmith, who boarded with the parties and was employed by John as a journeyman, states that Elizabeth went to live with her father about the time of the death of her stepmother.  Testimony taken 21 March 1803: Martha Mulligan, of the City of Philadelphia, states that Elizabeth, whom she has known for twenty years, has lived with Mr. Pa—[?] who married her sister, since her father’s death.  Testimony taken 3[?] July and filed 4 July 1803: Elizabeth J Thompson (signed Elizabeth Thomson), aged 19 or thereabouts, saw Hester Palmer at her father’s house.  Testimony sworn to in open Court and filed 8 Sept. 1803: Francis White, “a man of colour,” aged 21 and upwards, who lived several years with the Defendant and witnessed abuse, mentions Elizabeth’s children (unnamed).  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 9 March “1803” but sworn to and filed 10 March “1804”: Francis Munhall, in whose house John resided in 1795.  John’s answer dated 14 Dec. and filed 16 Dec. 1805 withdraws earlier answer and confesses the truth in the original petition.  FHL film #1023003, images 67-126 (102).

GARWOOD, Elizabeth v. Joseph.  Petition of Elizabeth Garwood, by her next friend Aaron Duff, sworn to at Philadelphia Co. 24 July 1804 and filed the same day at #231 Sept. Term 1804 (served by proclamation); married in the City and County of Philadelphia “on the First day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety Eight”; cohabited “untill the month of April eighteen hundred and Four”; grounds: “the said Joseph forgetting the Ties which ought to be strictly regarded and held Sacred between Man and Wife has at divers different times had illict connexion with women of ill Fame and hath Committed and been guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken 21 March 1805: James Douglass McKinsey (signed James D. McKinsey), of the City of Philadelphia, Physician, states that a woman who said she was Joseph’s wife came to him with Joseph’s mother (whom he knows) in March 1804 with venereal disease; Joseph Agar (signed Joseph Eager) of the city of Philadelphia, stonecutter, states that Joseph, whom he has known seven or eight years, told him he had caught venereal disease; Daniel Murphy (same).  Divorced 22 March 1805.  FHL film #1023003, images 127-140 (133).

GERIN, Ann Désirée v. Nicholas.  Petition of Ann Désirée Gerin (signed A d Gerin), by her father and next friend Peter Guibert, dated at Philadelphia 10 Jan. 1798, sworn to before the Chief Justice 11 Jan. 1798, and filed that day at #64 March Term 1798 (subpoena directed to Nicholas “late of the City of Philadelphia, sculptor”); married “about four years ago at the City of Philadelphia”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “about one Year after their Said Marriage, Your Petitioner’s began husband began to use her extremely ill, So as to render life intolerable, and in particular repeatedly brought into her father’s house, when in the said City of Philadelphia, in which house She & her said husband did live together with her said father, a certain Negroe Woman (whose name your Petitioner does not know) & then & there her said husband did frequently commit the crime of adultery with the said Negroe Woman in violation of his marriage vows, and committed other enormities against Your Petitioner, and at last about Eighteen Months ago entirely abandoned your Petitioner & departed for places to her unknown, from whence She has never heard from him since that time & verily believes he never means to return to his family.”  Petition marked “May 1803 n.b.f.”  FHL film #1023003, images 141-151 (144).

GIBSON, Jane v. Robert.  Petition of Jane Gibson (signed with her mark), of Butler Co., by her next friend William Kerns, sworn to at Westmoreland Co. before a justice of the peace 27 March 1804, and filed 26 April 1804 at #106 Sept. Term 1804 (defendant served by an Associate Judge of Butler Co. on 15 Oct. 1804); married 28 April 1796 “to a certain Robert Gibson of saidWestmoreland County”; cohabited “untill the first day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven”; grounds: “the said Robert from the aforesaid first day of March in the year aforesaid hath wilfully and maliciously without any reasonable cause deserted and absented himself from her the said Jane and such wilful desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four years and more and yet doth continue to thus absent himself from her the said Jane.”  Testimony taken at the town of Butler, Butler Co., 17 Nov. 1804 (unsigned): Francis Kerns, who states that Jane, whose maiden name was Jane KERNS) was a sister of his, that he was present at her marriage at the house of William Kerns in Franklin Twp., Westmoreland Co., by Jeremiah Murray, J.P., that the parties cohabited until February or March 1797 in Westmoreland County and lived for two months with James Gibson, Robert’s father.  Divorced 22 Dec. 1804.  FHL film #1023003, images 152-172 (170).

GIDEON, Jacob v. Mary.  Petition of Jacob Gideon (signed with his mark) sworn to at Philadelphia 13 Oct. and 27 Nov. 1800 and filed 25 [sic] Nov. 1800 at #168 Dec. Term 1800; married Mary GRACE “in the year 1786”; cohabited “for several years, during which Period the said Jacob had children by the said Mary”; grounds: “your Petitioner continued to live in a State of Harmony with the said Mary from the Time of his Marriage until about six years ago when he discovered that his said Wife regardless of the Obligations She was under of Fidelity to him in the married State, gave herself entirely up to the Embraces of George Smith with whom She committed Adultery – that She deserted your Petitioner’s House, & has lived with the said George Smith as an Adulteress for [next word written above the line, without a caret] nearly the Space of six — years past.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 11 March 1801: Sene Yenser, of the City of Philadelphia, widow, states that she lived in their house and was present at the baptism of Mary’s child who she said was George’s and who was named George Smith.  Divorced 16 March 1801.  FHL film #1023003, images 173-192 (187).

GLOUS (GLOSS on interrogatories), Phebe v. William.  Petition of Phebe Glous, “by her next Friend William Jones of the City of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, dated at Philadelphia 8 Feb. 1799, sworn to there 7 [sic] Feb. 1799, and filed 8 Feb. 1799; married 19 July 1796; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said William Gloss on the second day of January in the Year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and Ninety Seven and at divers other Days and times since the said second day of January aforesaid in Violation of Marriage hath maliciously abandoned his Family and by cruel and barbarous Treatment hath endangered the life of your Petitioner and hath offered such Indignities to her Person as to render her Condition intolerable and her Life burthensome.”  Testimony taken 12 Dec. 1799: Edil Doublebower (signed Edilh Dobelbower [Edith?], states that she has known the Libellant from her infancy, and that after William left her (with a very small child), in Aug. 1798, “she came to the house of this deponent where she has since remained;  Amos Jones states that he has known the Libellant “from birth,” and that William went to Lancaster but has since left there.  Divorced from bed & board 28 Dec. 1799.  FHL film #1023003, images 193-209 (197).

GOFF, Margaret v. Samuel.  Petition of Margaret Goff (signed with her mark), “of the County of Philadelphia wife of Samuel Goff late of the same County,” by her next friend Samuel Hargesheimer, sworn to at Philadelphia 8 Aug. 1797 and filed the same day; married “about eight years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “her said Husband hath for more than four years past wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself without any reasonable cause from your Petitioner and Libellant and lived in adultery with a lewd Women whose name is to your Libellant unknown.”  FHL film #1023003, images 210-213 (210).

GOODFELLOW, Mary v. William.  Petition of Mary Goodfellow (signed with her mark), by her next friend William Carr, sworn to before the Chief Justice 28 Jan. 1802 and filed the same day at #60 March Term 1802; married at Philadelphia Co. 9 Dec. 1797; cohabited “untill the beginning of the month of January in the Year of Our Lord One thousand seven hundred And Ninety Eight”; grounds: “the said William from the said month of January in the Same Year, hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from the said Mary, and in such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of Four Years and more without any Just or reasonable cause, and yet doth continue so to absent himself from the Society of her the said Mary.”  Divorced 1 Jan. 1803.  FHL film #1023003, images 214-216 (214).

GORDON, David v. Elizabeth.  Petition of David Gordon, “of the Township of Tinicum in the County of Bucks,” dated Bucks Co. 10 Nov. 1794, sworn to before the Chief Justice 20 Nov. 1794, and filed the same day; [date and place of marriage and period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “Elizabeth Gordon the Wife of Your Petitioner on or about the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and eighty eight and without reasonable Cause wilfully and maliciously desert and abandon the Habitation and Embrace of Your Petitioner, and in violation of the Marriage vow hath ever since [next three words careted] wilfully and maliciously Continued in Said desertion to wit, for the Space of four Years and more by which desertion and absence Your Petitioner is much injured and aggrevied [sic].”  FHL film #1023003, images 217-225 (221).

GORE, Sarah v. Simon.  Petition of Sarah Gore, by her next friend John Shields, sworn to before the Chief Justice 30 Nov. 1786 and filed that day; married “to Simon Gore of the City of Philadelphia Butcher,” 3 June 1779; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Simon Gore, regardless of the Solemn Marriage Contract, hath since their Marriage been guilty of the Crime of Adultery with various lewd and dissolutd women, and in consequence thereof hath repeatedly been affected by the Venereal disease, which lays your Libellant under the necessity of applying for a Separation from the Bonds of Matrimony.”  Testimony (not signed or dated), filed 5 Feb. 1787: John Cannon, “lately of the City of Philadelphia,” who lived with the parties four or five weeks in August and September 1786.  Simon’s answer dated 11 Sept. 1797: not guilty.  Petition marked “Sep. 87 Trial verdict of Guilty | pa[ge]. 263.”  FHL film #1023003, images 226-235 (228).

GREEN, Adam v. Mary.  Petition of Adam Green (signed with his mark), “of the City of Philadelphia,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 27 July 1802 and filed that day at #308 Sept. Term 1802; married 5 July 1797; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Mary, in violation of her marriage vow, hath, for a considerable time past, given herself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery.”  FHL film #1023003, images 236-240 (238).

GREFFIN/GRIFFIN, Stephen v. Rachael.  Petition of Stephen Griffin (signed Stephen Greffin; “Greffen” on the cover), dated 10 Nov. and sworn to and filed 11 Nov. 1795; married “about three years ago … a certain Rachael WOOD, formerly THOMAS”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “Since his Intermarriage with the said Rachael, She has been guilty of Adultery with one Samuel Gartley – That She has since the Commission of that Crime deserted your Petitioner and still continues to live seperate from him.”  Petition marked “Jan^y 1800 n.b.f. vide [i.e., see] Docqt. 98 | pa[ge]. 60.”  FHL film #1023003, images 241-245 (243).

GRISCOM, Catharine v. George.  Petition of Catharine Griscom, by her next friend John Schreiner, dated at Philadelphia 17 Feb. 1797, acknowledged before the Chief Justice that day, and filed the same day; married 28 July 1785; cohabited “till ab^t the tenth day of January in the year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and ninety two”; grounds: “the said George in violation of his marriage vows hath alienated his affections from your Libellant and on [next two words careted] or about the said tenth day of January in the year last aforesaid withdrew himself from your Libellant and willfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from your Petitioner without any reasonable cause and hath ever since continued so to do by withdrawing himself to places to your Petitioner unknown.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 23 and 24 Aug. 1797, respectively, on interrogatories: Mary Krider, of the City of Philadelphia, states [1] “That she is the Sister of the Libellant, and that she has known the Respondent ever since his marriage with the Libellant, which was in the year 1784, and sometime previously thereto. [2] That she was not present at the intermarriage of the Parties, but that she was informed at the time, and verily believes, that they were married in the year 1784 by the Swidish Minister D^r [Nicholas?] Collin, at Ministers house in Southwark. [3] That the Parties lived and cohabited together as man and wife for the space of five years after their intermarriage as aforesaid. [4] That the Parties lived together about fourfive years; that soon after their marriage they went to Burlington in New Jersey, and thence to Newborn in North Carolina, that during their absence from Philadelphia this Deponent heard that the Defendant treated the Libellant very ill; that on their return to Philadelphia they lived awhile with the Defendants Parents, during which time, the Defendant did little or nothing for the support of himself and family; but sometime in the year 1790 they came to live with this Deponent, but the Defendant did not remain with her above two months, though his wife, the Libellant, has remained with her [interlined word; next word careted] almost ever since, till about two months ago; that during the whole time of their living with this Deponent, the Defendant did nothing towards the support of his family, but the Libellant supported herself and two children by needle-work, and her Father paid the Rent for her lodgings; that the Defendant was always addicted to the use of strong liquors, and during the whole time of his living in Philadelphia, after his return from Newborn as aforesaid he was in a state of intoxication, more or less; that he earned money in his trade as a Jeweller, but expended all of it in liquor; that in the year 1792 the Defendant, as this Deponent verily believes, wilfully and maliciously deserted his said wife and children; that he went from Philadelphia to Reading, and shortly afterwards enlisted as a soldier in the Western Army, in which station this Deponent is informed and verily believes, he still remains; that from the time of his desertion as aforesaid to the present day he has never contributed in the smallest degree to the support of the Libellant and his two children; and that she never heard him assign any cause for his bad treatment and desertion of his wife, but, it is said, that he sometimes complained that she could not cook his victuals well enough for him. [5] That she recolects many instances of cruel treatment from the Defendant to the Libelant, particularly his refusal in extreme cold weather to allow her firing, when she has been obliged to beg a little wood from this Deponent.”  Jacob Schreiner, of the City of Philadelphia, cabinetmaker and storekeeper, states that he has known the parties fifteen years.  Divorced 4 Sept. 1797.  FHL film #1023003, images 246-270 (266).

GUENNETEAU, Joseph v. Julia.  Petition of Joseph Guenneteau, “of the City of Philadelphia, Merchant,” and United States citizen and Pennsylvania resident “for Several Years now last past,” dated at Philadelphia 1 July 1805, sworn to before the Chief Justice that day, and filed the same day at #201 Sept. Term 1805; married “Julia (born Julia MAZY),” at the City of Philadelphia in the month of Jan. 1795; cohabited “for several years”; grounds: “Your said Libellant to his great Sorrow & Surprize, has lately discovered, that his Said wife, unmindful of her marriage vow & of her duty to Your Libellant, has committed the heinous crime of adultery, with a certain Nicholas Barrabino, who has so seduced the said Julia, & got possession of her affections, that Your Libellant’s domestic peace & happiness has been entirely destroyed, without any hopes of ever recovering the same, and Since Your Libellant has been ascertained of his said wife’s infidelity, they have ceased to cohabit with each other, and live at present in State of separation from each other. [¶] And Your Libellant avers, that Since his intermarriage with the said Julia, he has always behaved to her in every respect as a good & kind husband ought to do, that he has been faithful to the marriage bed, & has given her no just cause or ever pretence for her criminal conduct towards him.”  Testimony taken and filed 11 Sept. 1805: Joseph Mathieu, of the City of Philadelphia, physician, and their family physician for eight years, states that Julia lives separately and has had two children with Nicolas; Mary Croll, of the City of Philadelphia, “a married woman,” states that she lived with them as chambermaid for about thirteen months.  Divorced 14 Sept. 1805.  FHL film #1023003, images 274-287 (276).

GUERIN, Mary Achsah v. George.  Petition of Mary Achsah Guerin (signed Mary A. Guerin), “by her next friend and brother John Cromwell,” sworn to at Philadelphia 4 Nov. 1803 and filed 12 Nov. 1803 at #67 Dec. Term 1803; married “about fifteen years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That about a year after the said marriage the said George sailed from this country to Europe and has never since been seen by your Libellant. For several years after the departure of the said George as aforesaid, your Libellant from time to time received letters from him, but no kind of aid in her support and maintenance. It is now about twelve years since She has received even the attention of a letter from him. That about ten years since the said George was for some time in the City of Philadelphia as your libellant is informed but never called upon your Libellant or furnished her with any means of support, although she was also at that time resident in the same City. That about one month ago since, as your Libellant is informed the said George was again in the said City, and neglected, as before, to see or assist your Libellant.  That the conduct of your Libellant has been in every respect prudent and becoming an affectionate and faithful wife, giving no sort of cause for the said wilful and malicious desertion of her said husband.”  Divorced 21 March 1804.  FHL film #1023003, images 271-273 (271).

HACKLEROTH, Mary v. John.  Petition of Mary Hackleroth (signed in German script Marÿa Ha—[?]), “of Warwick Township in the County of Lancaster,” by her next friend John Smith, affirmed before a Supreme Court Justice 26 Feb. 1803 and filed 3 March 1803 at #171 March Term 1803; married in the month of April 1796; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “near five years past the said John Maliciously and without any reasonable cause deserted and absented himself from your petitioner and carried off all her clothes with him and still continues absent – that during the time the said John lived with your Petitioner, he frequently beat her severely and treated her with great cruelty, at one time he attempted to shoot her at another [next word careted] threatened to stab her with a large knife.”  Testimony (unsigned and undated), certified 27 Dec. 1803: Henry Foltz states that parties married “about seven years and nine months past,” and cohabited about two years; John Freymyer, who was present at the marriage; and George Grier[?] states that the “Plaintiff is his daughter.”  Divorced December Term 1803.  FHL film #1023003, images 292-305 (296); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 21-22.

HANLEY/HANLEN, Grace v. Patrick.  Petition of Grace Hanlen (signed Grace Hanley), “at present the wife of Patrick Hanley, of the City of Philadelphia, labourer,” by her next friend Peter Maher, Guardian of the Poor, sworn to at Philadelphia before the Chief Justice 13 July 1805 and filed the same day at #225 Sept. 1805; married on or about 19 June 1796; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Patrick Hanlen without reasonable cause hath [interlined word] Wilfully and maliciously deserted her and absented himself from her for and during the space of four years and upwards. And has committed adultery with a certain woman whose name to your Petitioner is unknown.”  Patrick’s answer (signed Patrick Hanley), dated 19 Nov. and filed 21 Nov. 1805, accuses Grace of adultery on about 10 Jan. 1799 with Peter Woods.  FHL film #1023003, images 306-312 (309).

HANNIUS – see HUNNIUS

HANTZ, Jacob v. Elizabeth.  Petition of Jacob Hantz, “of York County,” sworn to in York Co. 3 Dec. 1799 and filed 6 Feb. 1800 at #100 March Term 1800; “about four years past intermarried with a certain Elizabeth SHEAFFER”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that at the time of the said intermarriage, the said Elizabeth was pregnant by a certain George Spore, of which your Petitioner had no knowledge untill after the said intermarriage, and that the said Elizabeth hath frequently since that period behaved herself in a very gross and indecent manner and hath often committed adultery with the said George Spore.”  Testimony taken at York Co. 5 March 1801: John Kneisley (signed John Kniselley), who “knew them well since they were about ten or twelve years old; Catharine Hantz (signed with her mark), of Dover Twp., York Co., aged 50 and upwards, states that “she is the mother of libellant, has known Elizabeth since her infancy,” that she “was present when the Reverend Mr. Grub married [them about four years ago],” that Elizabeth was delivered of a male child about 4½ months thereafter, that she then went to her parents and Jacob went to Spain for about a year, and that Elizabeth has had two other children; John Hantz (signed in German script Johannes Hantz), of the same place, states that Jacob “is his brother.”  Divorced 26 March 1801.  FHL Film #1023003, images 323-324, 332-348 (338); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), pp. 81-82.

HARE, Elizabeth v. Daniel.  Petition of Elizabeth Hare for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend William Thomas, dated at Philadelphia 2 July and sworn to 6 July 1789; married “on the Eleventh Day of November in the Year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and seventy two at the County of Philadelphia in the then Province now Commonwealth of Pennsylvania”; cohabited “for about the Space of five Years”; grounds: “the said Daniel Hare since from and after the said Term of five Years or thereabouts hath totally alienated his Affections from his said Wife and hath left and deserted her for more than the Space of twelve Years and at the Time of such Desertion she had then two young Children and was enseint with a third without any just Ground or Cause of Complaint. Your Libellant further begs Leave to state to your Honours, that as well before as since his Desertion of her he hath never afforded her any Aid Releif or Assistance in the Support Education or Maintenance of her said Children but on the Contrary was absent at the first Time for the space of Seven Years and two Months, that upon his Return he continued with your Libellant for the Space of ten Minutes or thereabouts, when he immediately without Cause again went from her and did not return until the Spring of the present Year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty Nine. That by her sole and alone Industry she hath hitherto maintained and Supported her Children and brought them up in such a Manner as was suitable to their Situation and Station in Life.”  Testimony taken 14 Sept. 1790: William Thomas, of the City of Philadelphia, blacksmith, aged 55 and upwards, states that the parties “lived on a plantation adjoining to the Deponent in Charlestown township and county of Chester”; Abigail Thomas, wife of William, of the City of Philadelphia, blacksmith, aged 50 and upwards; Margaret Evans, of the City of Philadelphia, spinster, aged 28 and upwards.  FHL film #1023003, images 349-358, 374-379 (356).

HARE, Elizabeth v. Daniel.  Petition of Elizabeth Hare “of the city of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony, by her next friend William Thomas, dated 5 May 1791 and sworn to before the Chief Justice (defendant served by publication); married “on the [blank] day of [blank] in the year of your Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy two”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Daniel his said faith and vows forgetting hath alienated his affections from his said Wife and hath left and deserted her for the space of fourteen years and more last past without any just ground or cause of complaint made by the said Daniel, and at the time of such of such desertion your Libellant then had two young children and was enseint with a third. And your Libellant further begs Leave to state to your Honors that as well before as since his desertion of your Libellant he the said Daniel hath never member[?] afford any aid, assistance or relief in maintaining or supporting your Libellant or in the maintainance and Education of their Children.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 26 Aug. 1791: Margaret Evans, of the City of Philadelphia, aged 24 and upwards; Abigail Thomas, wife of William Thomas of the City of Philadelphia, blacksmith, has known the parties about 20 years and was present at their marriage about 18 years ago.  Divorced 5 Sept. 1791.  FHL film #1023003, images 359-373 (363).

HARE – see also HERR, below.

HARRIS, Jean/Jane v. James.  Petition of Jane Harris (signed Jean Harris), “wife of James Harris late of Lower Paxton Township now in Dauphin County,” by her next friend Robert Clark, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 19 Nov. 1790 and filed 29 Nov. 1790; married “the said James Harris then of the said Township and County [next word careted] of Lancaster,” 23 May 1779; cohabited [period not stated]; grounds: “altho: by the tenor of his marriage vows and by the Laws of Good & Man the said James Harris was bound to comfort and protect the libellant, and to live with and provide for her and the children the fruit of the said marriage yet true it is and of verity that the said James Harris, soon after his said marriage with the Libellant gave himself up to dissolute and idle courses, and shortly afterwards (to wit) on or about the latter end of November in the same Year suddenly deserted your Libellant without any cause on her part given leaving her pregnant with child of which she was afterwards delivered and which she m[?] hath been obliged to maintain by her own labor and without any assistance of her said Husband from its birth till the present time: And the Libellant further Sheweth that her said husband from the said Month of November in the Year aforesaid in which he left her without cause as aforesaid hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from the Libellant until the time of the exhibiting this Libell and hath all the time aforesaid continued out of this State without making any provision for the Libellant or her said child, or informing her of the place of his abode: And that the said Libellant hath frequently written letters to him and transmitted [next word careted] them to other States where she hath heard the said James Harris to have been seen and heard of, desiring him to return to her, and altho she hath reason to beleive [sic] the said letters or some of them hath came to his hands yet the said James Harris has never returned to her, nor acquainted her that he would receive and provide for her as a good husband ought to do: And that the said Libellant hath been informed by letters from the father of the said James Harris, who now and at the time of writing the said letters was resident in the State of North-Carolina (and that she verily beleives) that the said James Harris cohabits and lives with another woman as his wife and that she [next word careted] who hath several children reputed to be his: From all which it is manifest that the said James Harris hath been guilty of a wilful and malicious desertion of the Libellant [next word careted] without any reasonable cause for the space of four years and more, contrary to [next word careted] his said marriage vows and against the form of the act of assembly in such case made and provided.”  Testimony taken at Harrisburg 27 May 1791 (no signatures): James Colier, of Paxton Twp., Dauphin Co., states that he has known Jane since was she was six, that her maiden name was Jane HUTCHISON, that she was married in her mother’s house in Paxton Twp., that he “saw them married and put to bed together,” that James left her with a child and another born after he left, and the deponent has heard that he resides in South Carolina; Richard Fulton, of Paxton Twp., has known Jane about 14 years and James about 12 years.  Testimony taken 28 May 1791: Rev. John Elder of the congregation at Paxton, aged 81, states that he has known Jane “from a child,” that the parties were married by him “in the House of her Brother where her mother also lived” on 27 [sic] May 1779, that they cohabited for seven or eight months there, and that James left “in the fall after his marriage.”  Divorced 2 July 1792.  FHL film #1023003, images 380-403 (396); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), pp. 3-5, also Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 2-4.

HARVEY, Hannah v. Alexander.  Petition of Hannah Harvey (signed Hannah Harvy), by her next friend Jacob Ott, dated and sworn to at Philadelphia 5 Jan. 1799 and filed that day at #17 March Term 1799; married 31 Aug. 1789; cohabited “till about the Third = day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Ninety four”; grounds: “the said Alexander Harvey in violation of his Marriage Vows hath alienated his Affections from your Libellant and on or about the said Third— day of May — in the year last aforesaid withdrew himself from your Libellant and wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from your Petitioner without any reasonable Cause and hath ever since continued so to do by withdrawing himself to places to your Petitioner unknown.”  Petition marked “Jany. 1803 n b. f.”  FHL film #1023003, images 404-410 (406).

HAWKE, Ann v. James.  Petition of Ann Hawk (signed Ann Hawke), by her next friend John Cope, sworn to 29 Dec. 1804 and filed 31 Dec. 1804 at #16 March Term 1805; married 8 Dec. 1798; cohabited “from that time forward”; grounds: “that the said James hath given himself up to adulterous practices and that the said James on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred & one at the County of Philadelphia did commit adultery with a certain Elizabeth Smith and with divers other lewd women both before and after.”  Testimony taken 26 April 1805: Lydia Shaw, of the City of Philadelphia, widow, states that she is the petitioner’s mother, that Ann “was not quite fourteen years when she married,” that they were married by Parson Turner and lived together two years three months, and that last December she found James in bed with a hired girl when Ann was “confined in child bed.”  FHL film #1023003, images 411-420 (413).

HAWLEY – see HOWLEY

HAY/HAYES, Susanna v. Lawrence.  Petition of Susanna Hayes (signed with her mark) for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend Michael Schlosman of the City of Philadelphia, filed 20 Jan. 1787 (alias subpoena marked “Copy Left at his Last place of abode in Market Street with Mrs Walter the Sister of the Defentd)”; married on 19 Sept. 1784 “to a certain Lawrence Hays of the City of Philadelphia, coachman”; grounds: “But that the said Lawrence in ten months thereafter, forgetting the duty & protection he owes your libellant cruelly beat your petitioner with a design as it is thought to induce her to leave his house; but that the Said Lawrence finding that your petitioner continued with him, he thereupon wilfully & maliciously deserted & abandoned your libellant, & by surrendering his lease to the landlord of the house, hath deprived your libellant of a habitation, & hath wholly withdrawn from her his society, or support. By reason whereof your petitioner is reduced to great difficulties.”  Lawrence’s answer, filed 14 April 1787, denies abusing or deserting Susanna, and accuses her of living in adultery with Bryan Conner.  Susanna’s replication states that his allegations are not true.  Petition marked “Feb^y 1788 n.b.f. [Docket] pa[ge]. 302.”  FHL film #1023003, images 440-446 (445).

HEGER, Ann Catherine v. Philip.  Petition of Ann Catherine Heger (signed with her mark), “lawful wife of Philip Heger of the Township of the Northern Liberties in the County of Philadelphia Labourer,” and “an inhabitant of said Township from her earliest infancy until this time,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Frederick Piper, dated 23 March 1799, sworn to that day before a Philadelphia justice of the peace, and filed 6 June 1799 at #156 Sept. Term 1799; [marriage place and date not stated]; grounds: “that said Philip hath maliciously abandoned your Petitioner and his family for several years — that when he has thought proper to visit the Neighbourhood – instead of aiding the necessities of your Petitioner, has turned her and her children out of Doors, and most barbarously and cruelly wounded and beat her so as to endanger her life – and by every indignity to her Person rendered her condition intolerable.”  Testimony taken [presumably at Philadelphia] 11 Sept. 1800: Michael Anthony states he has known both parties 24 or 25 years; Frederick Piper states that he has known them nearly 20 years; Mary Norris (signed with her mark), has known them 7 years and lived near them, and mentions that “one of the daughters of the Parties” came to her about 5½ years ago to report an abuse.  Divorced from bed & board 17 March 1801, with the question of alimony reserved.  FHL film #1023003, images 447-472 (457).

HENDERSON, Mary v. Alexander.  Petition of Mary Henderson, “Wife of Alexander Henderson of the [next six word careted] District of Southwick in the County of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Thomas Dixey, sworn to before the Chief Justice 3 March 1795 and filed 4 March 1795 (defendant served personally); married “several years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that he hath nevertheless by frequent severe beatings, and by other cruel barbarous treatment endangered her life, and offered such indignities to her Person by abusive language and other means, as to render her condition intolerable and life burthensome.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 9 April 1795 (with reference to the defendant’s inebriation): Hester Fisher (signed with her mark), of the City of Philadelphia, spinster, aged 20, states that she lived with them about three months; Sarah Nelson (signed Sarah Nielson), of the City of Philadelphia, spinster, aged 19, states that she has known the parties for the last three years; William Barry, of the City of Philadelphia, house-carpenter, aged 30 and upwards; Robert Nelson (signed Robert Nielson), of the City of Philadelphia, cooper, aged 21 and upwards, states that he lived in their neighborhood for about eight years; Lucy Brown (signed with her mark), wife of John Brown, mariner, aged 35 and upwards, states that she lived next door to the parties for two years nine months, and that “the Libelant is frequently obliged to go to sleep at her daughter’s house.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 10 April 1795: Joseph Turner, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, aged 30, states that he has known the parties since last January.  FHL film #1023003, images 473-490 (475).

HENDERSON, William v. Mercy.  Petition of William Henderson “of the County of Franklin,” sworn to in Franklin Co. on 12 Feb. 1798 and filed 13 Feb. 1798; “some years since” married “a certain person of the name of Mercy VIOL, widow, and at that time an inhabitant of Philadelphia”; cohabited “for some months … in harmony with each other, and free from every disturbance during which time she regulated her conduct by the strictest rules of prudence and propriety”; grounds: “That subsequent to the above period, She the said Mercy, for reasons altogether unknown to your petitioner, began to manifest a total change in her conduct, discovering great wickedness of disposition and abandoning herself to the most open and flagrant Acts of indecency and impropriety– That in pursuance of this disposition She the said Mercy has indulged herself most shamefully in repeated acts of intoxication, rendering herself an unfit companion for your petitioner, and wholly disqualified for any comfort or happiness. That during the scenes of ebriety the said Mercy has in some instances threatened and in others attempted the life of your petitioner and declaring and avowing her determination to do so and having arms prepared for that purpose. That And your petitioner begs leave further to represent to your honourable Court that notwithstanding his forbearance and sufferings under all those injuries She the said Mercy continuing in her perversion of mind and base conduct, towards your petitioner, has added the crime of adultery with a certain John Laurence to her other offences.”  Mercy’s answer, dated, sworn to in open Court before the Chief Justice on 28 March 1798, and filed that day, asserts that she is innocent of adultery, and denies the allegations of the petition.  [No testimony.]  Divorced 15 Sept. 1798.  FHL film #1023003, images 491-501 (499).

HENRY, Agness v. John.  Petition of Agness Henry, “wife of John Henry of the Borough of Lancaster,” by her next friend James Thompson, dated 29 May 1795, sworn to 30 May 1795, and filed 23 June 1795; married 18 Nov. 1792; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the Said John Henry committed adultery with a certain Esther Jenkins in the County of Lancaster between the first day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred & ninety four & the tenth day of August [interlined word] of the same year of which he was convicted at May Sessions 1795 for Land^r County a copy [next words careted] of which conviction & judgment thereon is herewith filed.”  File includes a copy of John’s conviction for adultery on 6 Aug. 1794 in Republica v. John Henry, May 1795 Session of the Lancaster Co. Court of Quarter Sessions; also certificaton by Elisha Rigg, Rector of St. James’ Church, that he married John Henry and Agnes READECK at Lancaster on 18 Nov. 1792.  [No testimony.]  Divorced 14 Dec. 1795.  FHL film #1023003, images 502-516 (512); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 9-10.

HERR, John v. Elizabeth.  Petition of John Herr (signed in German script Johannes Herr), “of Manor Township in the County of Lancaster,” dated and sworn to before a Lancaster County judge 21 March 1797, and filed 7 June 1797; married 10 Oct. 1792; cohabited “untill the Sixteenth day of March one thousand seven hundred and ninety three”; grounds: “That the said Elizabeth on the day & year last aforesaid wilfully & maliciously deserted & absented [next word careted] herself from the bed and board of your Libellant without any reasonable cause & has continued her said wilful & malicious desertion & absence from that period to the present time without any reasonable cause & altho your Libellant has solicited her return to his bed & board. That her said wilful & malicious desertion & absence has already continued for more than four years & that at present no hopes remain that she will return to her duty as a wife.”  Elizabeth’s (unsigned) answer, filed 30 March 1798, admits the marriage [date left blank] but denies all else.  Petition marked “ap[ri]^l [17]98 at nisi prius [i.e., tried before a jury] at Lancaster | Trial & Verdict f[or?] Lib[ellant].”  FHL film #1023003, images 517-527 (521); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), p. 11

HESSER/HESCHER, Elizabeth v. John.  Petition of Elizabeth Hesser (signed in German script Elizabeth Hesser[?]), “at present the wife of John Hesser late of the County of Philadelphia Sadler, by Christopher Mason John Fry her next friend,” sworn to before a Philadelphia Co. Common Pleas judge 27 Oct. and filed 3 Nov. 1800 at #101 Dec. Term 1800 (defendant served by proclamation and publication); married “about fifteen years ago”; grounds: “That the said John since the first day of January One thousand Seven hundred & eighty eight committed divers acts of Adultery.”  Testimony taken 18 and 20 Feb. 1801, respectively: Catharine Fried (signed with her mark), knows nothing of the adultery; Catharine Nunnamacher (signed with her mark), states that she has known the parties for about ten years, that she “nursed the libellant three times when she was lying in,” that about three years ago, as she was going out into the piazza, she heard the parties’ daughter, then between 12 and 13 years old, crying because her father had sexually assault her, and that when Elizabeth was informed, John, rather than being taken before a justice of the peace, preferred to leave after he had gotten some money from Elizabeth’s father [unnamed].  Divorced 25 March 1801.  FHL film #1023003, images 528-542 (533).

HESTON, Rachel v. Silas.  Petition of “Rachel Heston late Rachel KNOWLES, of the Township of Lower Wakefield in the County of Bucks,” by her next friend Zachariah Betts, dated 24 Oct. 1797, sworn to that day in Bucks Co., and filed 28 Feb. 1798; married 10 June 1793; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That on the Nineteenth Day of October in the year same year aforesaid the said Silas Heston did wilfully and maliciously desert and depart from her and his former place of residence without any reasonable cause and go to some place to her unknown, that since since the said time she has never heard from him, nor has he cohabited with her or found or provided any thing for her support or maintenance– your Petitioner laboring under many great disadvantages from the usage she hath received from Silas Heston her husband who hath absented himself from her upwards of four years.”  FHL film #1023003, images 543-549 (547).

HIBBS, Mary v. Mahlon.  Petition of Mary Hibbs, “at present the wife of Mahlon Hibbs of [written over erased text] Falls Township in the County of Bucks yeoman,” by her next friend Amos Subers, affirmed 22 Dec. 1803 and filed the same day at #188 Dec. Term 1803; married 28 Dec. 1798; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Mahlon Hibbs without reasonable cause, hath wilfully and maliciously deserted her, and absented himself from her, for and during the space of four years and upwards, and hath committed adultery with a certain Mary Overdurf as well as with divers other lewd women whose names are unknown to your Petitioner.”  Testimony taken 8 Sept. 1804: Richard Thomas, aged about 42, farmer, states that the defendant rented a room from him in August 1802 and remained for seven months and brought with him a woman named Mary Overdurf, saying they were married; Lavinia Knight, aged about 16, “employed in the usual family business of young women who live with their parents,” states that “she is the daughter of Mary Hibbs by her former husband,” Doctor Samuel KNIGHT, that she has known the defendant since December 1799, that she “was present and did see the said Mary Hicks late Mary Knight and the said Mahlon Hibbs Joined together” in marriage by William Coats, Esq., a Philadelphia Co. Justice of the Peace, and that the parties lived together until about September 1799.  Divorced 8 Sept. 1804; defendant ordered to pay the costs.  FHL film #1023003, images 550-569 (566).

HODGKINSON, Jane v. Samuel.  Petition “of Jane Hodgkinson at present the Wife of Samuel Hodgkinson [next word careted] late of the City — of Philadelphia Philadelphia Shoemaker,” by her next friend Israel Boake, sworn to at Philadelphia 10 March 1800 and filed in open Court 18 March 1800 at #1 Sept. Term 1800, and stating that she has resided in this State “for several years previous”; married 5 Nov. 1796; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Samuel Hodgkinson without hath knowingly, entered into a Second Marriage in violation of the previous vow he made to your Petitioner, whose said Marrriage is still Subsisting and that the said Samuel hath committed adultery with a certain woman whose name to your Petitioner is unknown.”  FHL film #1023003, images 570-571 (570).

HOLLAND, Ann v. James.  Petition “of Ann Holland of the City of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend C. Fred. Dobelbower, sworn to and filed 27 July 1792 (subpoena notes that “Dft. lives at Tavern above Hassells[?] opposite the state house”); married “to a Certain James Holland of the City of Philadelphia House-Carpenter,” at Philadelphia Co. on 24 Feb. 1788; cohabited “for about fifteen months”; grounds: “That about four years last past the said James forgetting the duty he owed to the Libelant withdrew his Affection from her without any cause but his own evil minded disposition and did frequently beat and abuse her, after threatening her life and neglecting to provide for her and his family necessary food, all of which your Libellant endured in hopes of his reformation and Amendment, but that the said James on the Eleventh day of June in the year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and eighty nine Wilfully and Maliciously abused your Libellant so as to endanger her life and offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and thereby forced her to withdraw herself from his family, & hath ever since wholly abandoned her. That the said James works at the trade of a House-Carpenter and is able to Contribute to the Support of your [next word careted] the Libellant as by his Marriage vow he is bound to do.”  Testimony taken 26 Jan. 1793: Gunning Bedford, of the City of Philadelphia, alderman, states that he lived in the Libelant’s neighborhood in Lombard St., Philadelphia, about four or five years ago, and that he first met the defendant when he was brought before him on the neighbors complaining that he was breaking furniture and beating his wife; Richard Guy, of the City of Philadelphia, bricklayer, states that he has known the parties as neighbors since 1789.  Divorced 7 Jan. 1793.  FHL film #1023003, images 572-593 (578, 581).

HONNORATY, John v. Mary Ann.  Petition of John Honnoraty (signed J. Honnoraty 1.[?]), dated at Philadelphia 13 Oct. 1795, sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 15 Oct. 1795, and filed 21 Oct. 1795; married “a certain Mary Ann OATES” 11 Sept. 1785; cohabited “until June last past”; grounds: “that the said Mary Ann from the said Month of June, from which time She and your Libellant hath lived Seperate [sic] and apart from bed and board, and having before totally alienated her affections from your Libellant and giving herself up to lewd practices and to the having adulterous conversation and intercourse with lewd men, and more particularly that She the said Mary Ann for the space of four months last past hath lived in the City of Philadelphia in open and avowed adultery with a certain Dominick Barthe and yet doth continue to commit adultery with him the said Dominick, from all which it is evident that the said Mary Ann hath been guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia [blank] March 1796: Nicholas Collin states that he and a Mr. Gautier hired a chamber at the corner and 3rd and 4th streets where he has found Mary Ann in bed.  Divorced April 1796.  FHL film #1023003, images 594-608 (606).

HOPPS, Mary v. Samuel.  Petition of Mary Hopps for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend John Thomas, affirmed in open court 9 Dec. 1799 and filed 11 Dec. 1799 at #1 March Term 1800 (defendant served “in the Common Jail of Philadelphia County”); married 28 June 1792; cohabited “from that time until lately”; grounds: “that for a considerable time past the said Samuel hath totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and hath given himself up to habits of intoxication and total neglect of the means of providing a maintenance for his family that at divers times he hath assaulted beaten and otherwise maltreated your Libellant in the most and cruel and barbarous manner and hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and life burthensome to her insomuch that your Libellant can no longer live in the family and society of the said Samuel Hopps.”  Testimony taken [presumably at Philadelphia] 22 Nov. 1800 (affirmed): Ann Dennis (signed Anne Dennis), mantua maker [dressmaker], nearly 66 years of age, states that she has known the parties for a number of years past, that she stayed with them for nearly three weeks at Samuel’s invitation, and that the Libellant keeps a store for groceries for her support; Eli Dickerson, cooper, aged “upwards of 25 years of age,” states that he has known both parties for about the past two years, and that Samuel “still lives with the Libellant and is generally drunk.”  Divorced from bed & board 12 Dec. 1801.  FHL film #1023003, images 609-627 (615).

HOTCHKISS, Abigail v. David.  Petition of Abigail Hotchkiss (signed with her mark), “of Luzerne County,” by her next friend Ichabod Meriam, sworn to in Luzerne County 22 April 1801 and filed 4 June 1801 at #124 Sept. Term 1801; married 26 Oct. 1772; cohabited “from that time until September in the year one thousand seven hundred & Eighty nine”; grounds: “That the said David — from the Twenty second day of September in the year seventeen Hundred & Eighty [next word careted] nine until the present time hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Abigail and such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of Eleven years and more without any just or reasonable cause, and yet doth continue to absent himself from her the said Abigail.”  FHL film #1023003, images 628-632 (630).

HOUSTON, Jane v. Samuel.  Petition of Jane Houston (signed with mark), by her next friend James Russell, sworn to before a justice of the peace 2 March 1805 and filed 5 March 1805 at #168 March Term 1805 (Defendant served “at the house of John Hagey, Innkeeper (Burnhilt) April 16^th 1805” and by proclamation and publication); married on or about 11 July 1792 “a certain Samuel Houston with whom she continued to live & cohabit as his lawful Wife”; grounds: “your libellant has been informed & verily believes that at the time of the said Marriage the said Samuel was a Married Man & yet has a Wife in some one of the West India Islands to whom the said Samuel was married agreeably to the laws of Great Britain previous to his acquaintance or intermarriage with your Libellant; And your libellant further states that since her cohabitation with the said Samuel her life has been one continued scene of vexation & distress – for that the said Samuel is a dissolute drunken & abandoned Man neglecting his business frequenting tavern & Lewd houses, & frequently returns home intoxicated with strong liquor & beats and abuses your libellant in the most cruel & barbarous manner, inasmuch so that your libellant has frequently been so cruelly beaten as to be unable to attend to her family concerns but has languished under her bruises for several days in bed– And your libellant further states to this honorable Court that the said Samuel regardless of his Conjugal vow solemnly plighted to this defendantLibellant has frequently on divers days & at divers times Committed the Crime of Adultery with sundry lewd women whose Company & Society he constantly frequents– That on or about the tenth day of June in the year one thousand seven hundred & Ninety six he was detected in the Act of Adultery with a Woman he had got into his house, after the libellant had been driven from it, by the cruel barbarous & inhuman treatment she had received from the said Samuel Houston.”  Testimony taken 26 Nov. 1805: Sarah Deckers (signed with her mark), a married woman, states that she lives in the district of Southwark, has known both parties since some time in the year 1795, when she lived with them on Front Street, that a few days after Jane left him, the deponent went to Samuel’s shop to purchase some groceries, and in a little bedroom partitioned off behind the counter saw him lying on the bed with a woman not his wife, and that “a few days after this I went to the West Indies with my husband and did not return till about fifteen months ago.”  Divorced 28 Dec. 1805.  FHL film #1023003, images 633-646 (644).

HOWARD, John v. Betsy.  Petition of John Howard (signed with his mark), “of GermanTown in the County of Philadelphia, dated at Philadelphia 25 Jan. 1802, sworn to before the Chief Justice the same day and filed that day at #50 March Term 1802; married Betsy LUNDY “on the [blank] day of August in the year of Our Lord One thousand seven hundred & ninety seven”; cohabited “from that time till after she had committed repeated acts of adultery”; grounds: “the said Betsy in violation of her marriage vow hath for a considerable time past, given herself up to adulterous practices & been guilty of Adultery.”  Noted at the bottom of the cover of the subpoena: “notice sent to Harrisburg.”  FHL film #1023003, images 647-652 (649).

HOWLEY, Mary v. Patrick.  Petition of Mary Howley (signed with her mark), “of the City of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend Joseph Cray, dated 1 Sept. 1794 and sworn to that day in open Court; married “on the [blank] day of [blank] In the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty six … a certain Patrick Howley of the County of Philadelphia in the Commonwealth aforesaid”; cohabited “from that time untill the month of August In the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & ninety four”; grounds: “the said Patrick for several years past hath totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and by cruel and barbarous treatment hath repeatedly endangered the Life of your Libellant particularly within the Space of four months last past, hath struck at her with a Penknife with intention to kill or wound her and hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her Life condition intolerable and Life burthensome.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 20 Jan. 1795 (all residents of that City): Lawrence O’Neil (signed Lawrence O’Neill), mariner, aged 31 and upwards, states that he has known the parties since June when, confined by sickness, he boarded with them in Biddle’s or Mifflin’s Alley; William Whitley, labourer, who boarded with them; Margaret Todd states that she has known them about three years, and lived in their house; Elsy Talbot (signed with her mark), a free Negro woman, washerwoman, states that she lived next to them for one year and upwards.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 22 Jan. 1795 (all residents of that City): Michael Dougan[?], cabinetmaker; Niel McGinnis, shoemaker, refers to the parties’ child Nancy; Robert Larky (signed with his mark), labourer, also refers to their child Nancy.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 23 and 24 Jan. 1795, respectively: Edward Brennan (signed with his mark), dragman, states that Patrick employed him to drive his drag 12 months ago; Israel Roberts.  Petition marked “Struck off Docq^t [i.e., Docket 18]99 pa[ge]. 34.”  FHL film #1023003, images 421-439 (426).

HUNNIUS, Lydia v. [Dr.] Anthony.  Petition of Lydia Hunnius, “late Lydia PILES, by her next friend Capt. Benj. Monteith, filed 1 June 1798 at #221 Sept. Term 1798; married in the City of Philadelphia 16 Jan. 1795; cohabited “until the twenty fifth Day of October in the same year”; grounds: “the said Anthony from the said twenty fifth Day of October From which time the said Anthony and your Libell^t lived seperate and apart from bed and board. And having before Totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and given himself up to Lewd Practices and to the having Adulterous Conversation and Intercourse with Lewd Women and more particularly he the said Anthony, for some Considerable time last past hath lived in Open Adultery with a certain [blank] Bowerman in Northampton County in the State of Pennsylvania and yet doth continue to Commit Adultery, from all which it is Evident that the said Anthony hath been Guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken 13 June 1799: John Vogel (signed John Fogel), “at present residing in the Township of Macungie,” yeoman, states that the parties “came to live in a house of mine in Northampton County” about the last of Oct. 1796, that Lydia stayed a few days and then when to Philadelphia while Anthony stayed until the next February with Mrs. Haas, whose husband had left her, and who “left the County in March following and said she was going to the Doctor in Baltimore – But she was delivered of a child which she said was [Anthony’s].”  FHL film #1023003, images 313-322 (317), 325-331.

HURON DU ROCHER, Claudius Lawrence v. Agatha Angelica Helena.  Petition of Claudius Lawrence Huron du Rocher, commonly called Lawrence Huron, of the City of Philadelphia, dated 7 May 1800 and filed at #100 Sept. Term 1800; married by Rev. Peter Hubron, Pastor of R.C. Church of Holy Trinity, at Philadelphia, 10 Jan. 1798, bride’s name and origins are unknown to the Libellant, but she claimed to be the lawful daughter of Joseph Dieback and his wife Mary, and widow of William Joseph Dufair; grounds: adultery with the Libellant’s nephew Lawrence Huron DuRocher, and desertion as she departed for France about five months after her marriage “where she now lives.”  Divorced 7 Sept. 1801.  FHL film #1023002, images 603-698 (the petition is set forth in full in PGM 44:198), and #1023003, images 653-664.

IHRIE, Conrad v. Christina.  Petition of Conrad Ihrie the younger, ”now of the County of Philadelphia, but late of the County of Northampton in the State aforesaid [i.e., Pennsylvania],” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice at Philadelphia 15 July 1795 and filed that day (the High Constable of Easton states in his affidavit that he served Christina with a subpoena on 2 Sept. 1795); married “on or about the seventh day of May In the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty one … a certain Christina JUPE”; cohabited “untill about the Twenty ninth day of August in the year our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninetytwo [grounds:] when the said Christina without provocation on the part of the said Conrad not only wilfully and maliciously deserted herself and absented herself from the said Conrad, but hath also eloped from his bed and board and lived with and committed adultery with divers persons whose names are to this Libellant unknown since the said Twenty ninth day of august last mentioned & yet continues to live in practices of adultery. [¶] In as much as the said Christina hath maliciously and wilfully without a reasonable Cause deserted her said husband absented herself from him upwards tof two years & a half, hath eloped and lived in open adultery in that time …”  Petition marked “Ap[ri]l. [17]98 Ended Pltf for Costs. | pa[ge] 58.”  FHL film #1023003, images 666-672 (670).

IRWIN, Robert v. Catharine.  Petition of Robert Irwin (signed Robert Erwin) dated at Philadelphia 9 Jan. 1795, sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 10 Jan. 1795, and read and subpoena awarded 13 Jan. 1795; married in Philadelphia Co. 1 March 1791 “to a certain Catharine NUGENT”; cohabited “until the month of December last”; grounds: “the said Catharine from the Month of September last (whilst your Libellant was absent in the Western Country in Obedience to the call of his Country to assist in quelling the late insurrection there) having before totally alienated her affections from your Libellant & given herself up to lewd practices, & to the having adulterous conversation & intercourse with Lewd Men and more particularly that the said Catharine for the space of four Months last past hath lived in Philadelphia in the County of Philadelphia, In Open and avowed Adultery with a certain John Anderson and yet doth Continue to Commit Adultery with him the said John and with Divers other Persons unknown from all which it is Evident that the said Catharine hath been Guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 16 May 1795: Archibald Owens, “of the City of Philadelphia Carpenter, of the age of twenty five years and upwards,” states that he has known Catharine about two years, during which time she lived with her husband near ninth and market streets in Philadelphia, that he has frequently seen her drunk, that “about six days after the Libelant had marched with the Militia Army against the Insurgents, the Deponent, being a lodger in the House and sleeping in the room immediately above the one in which Catharine Irwin lodged, heard her in conversation with a certain John Anderson, who, as this Deponent verily believes, was then in bed with her, it being about twelve o’Clock at night …”; John Owens, “of the City of Philadelphia House-Carpenter, of the age of thirty years & upwards,” states that he has known the parties about six months, “[t]hat about six or eight days after the Libellant had marched on the western Expedition, this Deponent and his wife were lying in bed in a room divided by a thin partition from his Brother’s bed-place, immediately below the room occupied by the said Catherine Irwin … his brother, Archibald Owens said he knew very well whose voice it was ….”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 11 Aug. 1796: Thomas Evans, of the City of Philadelphia, Stone-Cutter, states that about four months ago the Defendant was brought to the Jail by a Constable for lewd and disorderly behavior, that she was then drunk and had a bottle of rum in her pocket, that “the Deponent has seen her frequently since that time very much intoxicated, in company with negroes and white persons of ill-fame and bad conduct, and that she now lives in a negroe house, in state of prostitution, as the Deponent has been informed and believes,” and that he was with the Libellant when they saw her commit adultery on 10 July last.  Divorced 14 Sept. 1796.  FHL film #1023003, images 673-696 (675).

JENKINS, Anne v. David.  Petition of Anne Jenkins (signed Ann Jenkins) of Chester Co. for alimony by her next friend John Ward, dated, sworn to and filed 25 Sept. 1790 (subpoena marked “near Heffelfinger’s Tavern”); “married to a certain David Jenkins of Vincent township in the County of Chester Farmer on or about the fifth day of February in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine”; grounds: “the said David Jenkins cohabited and staid with her the night of their Marriage and on the day following without any just cause or assigning any reason deserted and abandoned her to seek her subsistance [sic] in any manner she thought proper. That the said David hath never since cohabited or been in company with your Libellant excepting at the burial of the Child which she had by him and when she was confined in [next word careted] with the Meazles. That the said David has uniformly refused to let your Petitioner cohabit and live with him and also to allow her a sufficient support whereby she might be kept and not become chargable up[?] [next word careted] to the County.”  Petition marked “Dec^r 4 [17]93 Settled by parties | pa[ge]. 208.”  FHL film #1023003, images 698-701 (698).

JONES, John v. Catherine.  Petition of John Jones, mariner, dated at Philadelphia 15 Nov. 1786, sworn to the same day, and filed 16 Nov. 1786; married “on or about the twenty Eighth Day of April last past … with Catherine his present Wife, before that Time named Catharine COLLINS, the Widow of Captain James Collins, by the renownd Samuel Magaw Doctor of Divinity & Minister of the Gospel”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That since the s^d Marriage, & whilst your Petitioner was at Sea, the s^d Margaret Cathrine his Wife hath eloped from the Lodgings, in which your Petitioner had placed her, in company with one John Collins a Carpenter, & departed with him into some place or places out of this State, where they have cohabited & still do cohabit together; and that, before the s^d Elopement & since, the s^d Catherine hath repeatedly committed adultery with the s^d John Collins, in Violation of her Duty & Marriage Vows.”  Testimony taken 3 April 1787: David Flickware (signed David Flickwir), “of the City of Philadelphia formerly apprentice of John Collins house[?] Apprentice of William Leonard House Carpenter aged between Seventeen and eighteen Years,” states that he was not present at the marriage, that in July last he carried a letter from John Collins to the Defendant “who was at that time about three miles from Glocester in New Jersey” with directions to convey her to the Ferry at Glocester and stay there till the sloop should arrive, he waited with her and was ferried to the sloop that took them to Alexandria, Virginia.  Testimony taken 4 April 1787: John Preston (signed with his mark), “of the City of Philadelphia lately Apprentice to John Collins House Carpenter aged between fifteen and Sixteen Years,” states that he was at the house of James Byrne in the City of Philadelphia where they married but was not in the room at the time the ceremony was performed, before that Catharine “lodged at the house of her Mother Mrs. Foulke,” that she “went away with John Collins (who was then this Deponent[’]s Master) that they went together to Alexandria in Virginia … [and that] Deponent left Alexandria in the fall of 1786”; James Bryne, of the City of Philadelphia, Tavernkeeper, aged about 30 years, states that he has known the parties about four years, “that he came from Ireland with the Libellant,” that “Catharine F[obscured]Collins now called Catharine Jones,” was married 28 April 1786 “at the house of this Deponent, they were married by Dr. Samuel Magaw in the presence of the Deponent … [that they] lived at his House after Marriage till the said John Jones went to Sea which was on the 12^th May 1786. That the said Catharine Jones remained at the Deponent[’]s house till about the 28 June following. That John Collins frequented his House very much after said John Jones went to Sea ….”   Divorced April 1787.   FHL film #1023003, images 702-724 (716).

JONES, Mary v. Griffith.  Petition of Mary Jones, of the City of Philadelphia, by her next friend Daniel King, affirmed before the Chief Justice 24 Dec. 1804 and filed 2 Feb. 1805 at #79 March Term 1805 (served by proclamation); married 10 July 1777; cohabited “until the year One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Eight”; grounds: “the said Griffith Jones from the [blank] Day of March in the said year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and eighty Eight[next two words careted] Ninety one hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from [next word careted] her the said Mary Jones And your Libellant further Sheweth unto your Honors that some time in the year One Thousand Eight Hundred and one the said Griffith Jones intermarried with a certain Woman of the name of Young and has lived with her from that time as his Wife and hath committed Adultery with her.”  FHL film #1023003, images 725-729 (727).

KEEF, Ann v. Charles.  Petition of Ann Keef, of Lancaster Co., by her next friend John Young, sworn to at Lancaster Co. 19 Feb. 1803 and filed 3 March 1803 at ##170 & 171 March Term 1803 (subpoena returned 2 Aug. 1803 states that Charles’ last abode was “at the house of George Rahm in Ropho Township”); married “about two years and ten months years past”; [period of cohabitation not expressly stated]; grounds: “about four Months after their intermarriage the said Charles Keef deserted her and lived in a state of Adultery with a certain Elizabeth O Hogan, a married woman and seduced and the said Elizabeth from the house of her husband and still continues to live seperate from him.”  Testimony (unsigned) certified 27 Dec. 1803: Robert Miller states that he had been acquainted with the parties for nearly five years, that they were married in the spring or summer of 1800 and lived together about four months when they separated and Charles “told him that he had formed an intimacy with the wife of a certain Thomas O’Hogan in Manheim Lancaster County,” and intended to go to Philadelphia with her; John Arndt (affirmed) only knows Charles by sight, and that he left Manheim for Philadelphia; Mary Ligget,“a sister of Plaintiffs,” states that she was present at their wedding in April 1800, they lived together for four months during which “he beat her from coming to see her Mother who was then very ill and not expected to live,” and that he then left her “and has never lived with her since.”  Divorced 31 Dec. 1803.  FHL film #1023003, images 731-750 (748); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 19-21.

KEHLER, Elizabeth v. Abraham.  Petition of Elizabeth Kehler (signed with her mark), of the City of Philadelphia, for divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend George Cooper (signed in German script Georg Kester[?]), sworn to at Philadelphia 17 March and filed 21 March 1796 at #315 March Term 1803; married 19 Dec. 1777; cohabited until 20 Feb. 1795; grounds: “the said Abraham Kehler, on the Twentith day of February in the Year of Our Lord One thousand seven hundred and ninety five and at divers other times, since the said Twentieth day of February aforesaid in violation of his marriage Vow, hath Maliciously abandoned his family, and hath turned his Wife, Your petitioner, Out of doors, and by cruel and barbarous treatment, hath endangered her life, and hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her Condition, intolerable, and her life burthensome.”  Petition marked “Jany. 1800 n. b. f.”  FHL film #1023003, images 751-755 (753).

KEINSEL, see KIENSEL, below

KEITH, William v. Ann.  Petition of William Keith of the City of Philadelphia, mariner, sworn to at Philadelphia 7 Jan. 1791 and filed on or before 28 Jan. 1791 when it was read and a subpoena issued; married “a certain Ann BURGESS of the District of Southwark in the County of Philadelphia” on 27 Aug. 1785; grounds: “that a short time after your Libellant being a Mariner by Occupation Shipped in the Employ of Messierrs Gurney and Smith and Proceeded on a Voyage to Europe and Returned in about three Months, that Afterwards your Libellant made several Voyages from the Port of Philadelphia to different parts of Europe and always left an Order with the Merchants in whose Employ he sailed to pay his said Wife such sums of Money out of his Wages, as would be necessary for her Support and mantainance [sic] in his absence; That your Libellant conducted himself like a dutiful and Affectionate Husband till about the year one thousand seven Hundred and Eighty Nine; That then your Libellant had sufficient reason and evencing proof of his Wifes Incontinency For his Absence at Sea, having alienated her Affections from him without any Just Cause or provocation; That notwithstanding afterwards, about the Month of May one thousand seven Hundred and Ninety, Your Libellant proceeded on a Voyage to Lisbon and left an Order with his said Wife to draw on the Merchants in whose Employ he shipped two Pounds seventeen shillings per Month untill his return, That after the return of your Libellant from Sea, he found that his wife had disposed of all his Personal Property which he left in her Possession, (in his Absence) Amounting in Value to One Hundred Pounds, and removed to the House of a M^rs Curtis, a Woman of bad Fame, in the District of Southwark, and there lived in Adultery. That your Libellant hath sufficient proof of his Wife’s Incontinency, that she hath broken her Marriage Vows and Committed the Crime of Adultery [next thirteen words careted] with certain persons to your Libellant unknown on the tenth day of Aug^t in the year 1787. [next four words further careted] at the County afs^d.”  Charge of adultery nolle prossed by agreement of the parties.  Divorced 3 Sept. 1791.  FHL film #1023003, images 756-766 (763).

KEITH, William v. Margaret.  Petition of William Keith, “of the City of Philadelphia Mariner,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice at Philadelphia 24 Nov. 1796 and filed that day; married in Philadelphia Co. in March 1793; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Margaret unmindful of her marriage Vow and the duties thereby imposed hath at divers times since the Celebration of the said marriage committed adultery with a certain William Elfry and other persons to your Libellant unknown.”  Answer of Margaret Jane Keith filed 28 Dec. 1796, admits the marriage but denies all other matters.  Charges by “your mortified Servant William Keith” at “your written request to me dated [10 Jan. 1797]”: 1) “Living fourteen days in a house of Ill fame,” 2) keeping Polle Stewart and Dutch[?] Poll, common prostitutes, in her house, 3) adulterous connection with drunk sailors, 4) criminal conversation with William Elfree and Edward Blake, and 5) “A man seen in Bed with her at Sunrise … and similar action.”  FHL film #1023003, images 767-773 (772).

KEMP, Celeste v. Mathew.  Petition “ of SarahCeleste Kemp (signed Celleste Kemp), by her next friend Augustine Guigue, dated at Philadelphia 26 Oct. 1802, sworn to that day before the Mayor and filed 30 Oct. 1802 at #52 Dec. Term 1802; “contracted to, & married to a certain Mathew Kemp [next word careted] mariner in the Month of September & in the Year One thousand seven hundred and Ninety five”; cohabited “untill the month of November, One thousand seven hundred & Ninety Seven”; grounds: “the Said Mathew from the Month of November One thousand seven hundred & ninety seven untill this day, hath wilfully & maliciously deserted & absented himself from her the Said SarahCeleste, & Such desertion & Absence, hath persisted in, for the space of four years & more without any just or reasonable cause and yet doth continue to absent himself from her, the said Sarah.”  Testimony taken 22 March 1803: Augustin Guigue (signed A. Guigue), of the City of Philadelphia, baker, aged 37, states that he has known Celeste upwards of 15 years, that Mathew commanded an American vessel sailing out of the port of Philadelphia where he arrived in April 1796 with his wife Celeste, and they lodged at the deponent’s house where she boarded while he was on voyages, and that in May 1797 Mathew told him that he was going to Virginia but has never returned, that Celeste’s father wrote from Bordeaux in 1796 to inform him of the marriage at Bordeaux, that he is married to Celeste’s aunt and Celeste being destitute, he “has supplied her with money and necessaries,” and that she bore Mathew a daughter now about six years and three months old, but no other child; Joseph Ailhaud, of the City of Philadelphia, baker, aged 46, who states that he has known Celeste, who resides at the house of her Uncle Mr. Augustine Guigue, about six years, and does not know Mathew, or know Mathew to have resided with her.  Divorced 25 March 1803.  FHL film #1023003, images 774-788 (787).

KENLY, William v. Catharine.  Petition of William Kenley (“Kenly” on the cover, and signed W^m Kenly), of the City of Philadelphia, affirmed and filed 7 Sept. 1796; married 16 Sept. 1795 “to a certain Catharine CUNYUS who was at that time the wife of William Cunyus [elsewhere CUNNIUS] [next word careted] then and for several years before then resident in South Carolina and still living there as the libellant is informed and believes [¶] That your libellant’s marriage with the said Catharine was founded on a persuasion of its’ being a lawful connection on account of the absence of the said William Cunyus for the space of seven years and upwards but being since otherwise informed and finding that the said marriage was not lawful and obligatory and that any issue he might have by the said Catherine must be illegitimate he prays that due proof being made of the premises the Court will be pleased to award a sentence of divorce from the bonds of matrimony.”  Statement of the “Case for the opinion of the Court | On the 2^d November 1777. Catharine LAUER   the defendant – was married to William Cunnius with whom she abided some time and had a son – Some years afterwards William Cunnius removed to South Carolina where he now resides [¶] After his departure Catherine Cunnius married one Casper ISERLOAN[?] but it appeared that Casper Iserloan[?] had another wife – Therefore this marriage was considered void [¶] After the marriage with Casper Iserloan – Catherine Cunnius married William Kenley [¶] William Cunyus (who is still living) appl came to Philadelphia in 1796 and applied to counsel concerning his property in the possession of William Kenley– and shortly after returned again to Charleston [¶] Catharine Lauer (Cunnius or Kenley) has never been divorced from William Cunyus – [¶] William Cunyesr had been absent 8 or 9 years before the marriage of [next two words carreted] Catharine Kenley with William Kenley and Kenley was informed of the above circumstances & both he & Mrs Kenley believed & were advised that their marriage was lawful [¶] On the preceding state of facts it is respectfully submitted to the Court whether the Marriage was legal [signed by counsel for William Kenley].”  Divorced March 1797 [first page only of decree].  FHL film #1023003, images 789-798 (796).

KEYS, Anne v. Richard.  Petition of Anne Keys (signed Ann Keys) for divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend John Robinson, sworn to at Philadelphia 18 April 1794 and filed 19 April 1794; married “Richard Keys, then of the City of Philadelphia,” 15 Aug. 1783; cohabited “for several years”; grounds: “about two years ago the said Richard Keys maliciously abandoned her and her family consisting of three small children and went to Baltimore where he has ever since continued, leaving her without any support and compelled to subsist on the benevolence of her friends. [¶] That as soon as she discovered the place to which he had gone she wrote to him to request his permission to follow him [¶] That after repeated letters, he at length sent to her to come to him which she accordingly did taking with her the two oldest children leaving the third with her brother also carrying a few goods the greatest part of which had been furnished to her by the kindness of her relations after his departure [¶] But upon her arrival there he deprived her of both the children took away the goods and compelled her to return to Philadelphia where she now is abandoned by by him and supported as before by benevolent friends.”  Petition marked “Jan^y [17]97 Discont[inue]^d pa[ge]. 108.”  FHL film #1023003, images 799-806 (805).

KEYSER, Rebecca v. John.  Petition “of Rebecca Keyser, late Rebecca LUKENS” (signed with her mark), by her next friend Matthias Raser, sworn to 29 Nov. 1787; married “near thirty years ago … John Keyser, of GermantownRoxborough township Philadelphia County yeoman”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said John Keyser has for many years past been in confirmed habits of intoxication under the influence of which he has neglected to provide for his family & at time refused his wife and children food to support them [¶] His cruel and barbarous treatment has indangered her life & has occasioned an illness under which she now labors. He has frequently threatened to destroy her and at last by repeated injuries & indignities to person forced to withdraw from his house and family above five months since her condition from his continual ill-usage without any just cause or provocation having become intolerable and her live burthensom and she has now has no other support than the humanity of her friends, and relations.”  Libelant’s discontinuance filed 7 Jan. 1788.  FHL film #1023003, images 807-814 (812).

KIENSEL, Charlotte v. William (subpoena issued to William Keinsel), returned not found).  Petition of Charlotte Kiensel (signed with her mark), by her next friend Henry Herberger, sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 14 July 1801 and filed 17 July 1801 at #196 Sept. Term 1801; married in Philadelphia Co. on 18 Sept. 1777; cohabited “from that time until the month of year 1785”; grounds: “the said William from the said month of year 1785. — (from which time he and your Libellant have lived separate and aprt, from Bed and Board) and having before totally alienated his affections from his your Libellant and given himself up to lewd practices and to the having of adulterous conversation and intercourse with lewd women and more particularly that he the said William for the Space of eight years last past hath lived in the City of Philad^a in open and avowed adultery with a certain Maria Bostick and yet doth continue to commit adultery with her the said Maria Bostick —from all of which it is evident that the said William hath been guilty of Adultery.”  FHL film #1023003, images 815-818 (817).

KINGSTON, Mary v. Paul.  Petition of Mary Kingston dated at Philadelphia 4 Aug. 1786, sworn to there before the Chief Justice 7 Aug. 1786, and filed 14 Aug. 1786; married at the City of Philadelphia on 21 Feb. 1776 “to a certain Paul Kingston, Weaver”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Paul Kingston for more than six years last past has totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and hath given himself up to Drunkenness and vicious Courses and has abandoned the Care of his family and hath neglected to make any provision for their maintenance and Support and by cruel and barbarous treatment, and by blows and wounds has endangered the Life [next three words careted] of your Libellant and offered such Indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable and Life burthensome.”  Petition marked “July 1787 n.b.f. pa[ge]. 185.”  FHL film #1023003, images 819-824 (821).

KINSEY, Jane v. Philip.  Petition of Jane Kinsey, of the City of Philadelphia, for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Abraham Shoemaker, sworn to at Philadelphia before the Chief Justice 2 March 1791 and filed that same day; married 18 Nov. 1774; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Philip Kinsey, from the first day of January in the year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and Eighty six, and at divers other days and times since the said first day of January aforesaid, in violation of his marriage vow hath maliciously abandoned his family and hath turned his Wife, your Petitioner out of Doors, and by cruel and barbarous treatment hath endangered her life, and hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burthensome.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 29 Aug. 1791: Robert Correy, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, states that he has known the parties upwards of 20 years, becoming acquainted in the City of Philadelphia, that he believes they were married about 15 years ago, and that he “has sometimes lent the Defendant money, and believes that he was much distressed”; Sibella Bickham (signed with her mark), of the City of Philadelphia, spinster, states that she has known the parties about a year in Race St., Philadelphia, and “lived in the family for six months,” that the Defendant threatened to take his wife’s life and was arrested, and that Jane had the whole burden of supporting the family.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 30 Aug. 1791: Josiah Lewden, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, states that he boarded with the parties at the corner of Race and Second Streets, and that the parties have not lived together since the Defendant was imprisoned. Testimony taken at Philadelphia 5 Sept. 1791: Simeon Belden, of the City of Philadelphia, yeoman, states that he “lodged in the house of the Libellant in the same room, and during the same period as the said Josiah Lewden,” and corroborates what he testified to.  Divorced 5 Sept. 1791.  FHL film #1023003, images 825-838 (833).

KNIGHT, John v. Sarah.  Petition of John Knight of Abington Twp., Montgomery Co., sworn to in open court and filed 2 April 1788; married “on the thirtieth Day of January in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Three … a certain Sarah SHEPARD”; cohabited “untill the month of July in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Four, when the Libellant went from this State to Great Britain upon his just and lawful Occasions of Business, and [next two words careted] did not returned again [next word added in the margin] till on or about the Twenty Seventh Day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Six”; grounds: “the said Sarah hath committed Adultery in the County of Montgomery aforesaid with a certain Jonathan Knight. That a male Child was born of the Body of the said Sarah on or about the fifteenth of January, in the year One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Six, and a female Child born of the Body of the said Sarah, on or about the twenty second Day of June, in the year One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Seven. That both the said Children are of the offspring of the Bodies of the said Sarah and the said Jonathan Knight, in the Course of their adulterous cohabitation together. In as much as the said Sarah hath willfully and wickedly committed Adultery ….”  Sarah’s answer, dated at Philadelphia 14 April and filed 17 April 1790, admits the marriage, asserts that the parties cohabited “as well before as after the Birth of the said Children,” and due to “the cruel and unnatural Conduct of her said Husband towards her she is reduced to the most extreme Want and Misery and will be obliged to apply for relief to the Overseers of the Poor … [because] he refuses to contribute a single penny towards her Support,” even though he received £500 from her at the time of her marriage.  Petition marked “June [17]91 abated by pltf[’]s death | pa[ge]. 131.”  FHL film #1023003, images 839-845 (841).

KRAUß/KROUSE, John v. Savina.  Petition of John Krouse (signed in German script Johannes Krauß), “of the Township of Limerick in the County of Montgomery in the State of Pennsylvania yeoman,” sworn to in open Supreme Court 3 Sept. 1792, and read and subpoena issued 5 Sept. 1792 at Sept. Term 1792; married “on or about the first day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy four … with a certain woman then known and called by the name of Savina ROSAMINNIN”; grounds: “the said Savina regardless of her marriage vows hath since the said marriage betaken herself to lewd and vicious practices by commiting adultery and having had two children of her body [next eight words careted] one of whom was begot in North Carolina which were not begotten by the said John your Libellant.”  Petition marked “Sep[t]. [17]95 n. b.f. pa[ge]. 134.”  FHL film #1023003, images 846-849 (848).

KUNIUS, John v. Beersheba.  Petition of John Kunius sworn to at Philadelphia before the Chief Justice 9 Nov. 1801 and filed the same day (subpoena returned as not found); married Beersheba TROTH on 25 July 1800; cohabited “from that time … untill she left your petitioner on twenty second [next two words careted] Seventh day of September in the year last aforesaid”; grounds: “the said Beersheba at the County of Philadelphia in the year last aforesaid, became and was pregnant by some man, other than your petitioner, at the time and previous to the said marriage, of which child the said Beersheba was delivered, on the sixteenth [next two words careted] twenty second day of the said month of September, and on the said twenty second [next word careted] seventh day of the said month, the said Beersheba in violation of her marriage vow, maliciously abandoned her husband your petitioner.”  Petition marked “Libel dismissed Jan^y 1802.”  Also noted on the cover of the petition: “The Court are clearly of opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner within the provisions of the act of assembly  At the same time the circumstances of the case are of so peculiar and distressing a nature that they conceive it a very proper occasion for the interposition of the Legislature and recommend [next word careted] to the petitioner to their serious attention [next nine words careted] to profer his petition for relief to the Legislature in order that the only relief which can constitutionally be granted him may be afforded [signed by four Justices, along with the following:] At a Supreme Court 2^d January 1802.”  FHL film #1023003, images 850-854 (852).  For their statutory divorce, see 1802StDiv.

KYLE, Thomas v. Elizabeth.  Petition of Thomas Kyle, “of Washington Township in the County of Fayette,” sworn to in Fayette Co. on 9 Dec. 1800 and filed 20 Dec. 1800 at #9 March Term 1801; married Elizabeth CHAMBERS on 8 March 1783; cohabited “from the time of their intermarriage aforesaid untill the sixteenth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety five – [¶] That your Orator on the said sixteenth day December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety five left his home and place of residence aforesaid and continued absent untill the twenty eighth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine, when he returned to his home in Washington Township in the County of Fayette aforesaid – [¶] That during [next word careted] in the interval of your Orators absence, to wit on the second day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven the said Elizabeth your Orators wife as aforesaid intermarried with a certain John Jones now resident in [blank] Township in the County of Fayette aforesaid, with whom the said Elizabeth hath ever since continued and at present doth continue to cohabit and live And whereas by the fourth section of an act of Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, entitled ‘an act concerning Divorces and Alimony’ it is enacted ‘That if any Husband or Wife upon any false rumour in appearance well founded of the death of the other (where such other has been absent two for the space of two whole years) hath married or shall marry again he or she shall be liable to the pains of Adultery; but it shall be in the Election of the party remaining unmarried at his or her return to insist to have his or her former Wife or Husband restored, or to have his or her own marriage dissolved and the other party to remain with the Second Husband or Wife and in any suit or action instituted for this purpose within one year after such return the Court may & shall sentence and decree accordingly’ [¶] Your Petitioner and Orator therefore prays the Honorable Court to dissolve the marriage of your Petitioner with the said Elizabeth and decree that She remain with the aforesaid John Jones, and that the Honorable Court will for this purpose Order a Subpoena to be issued and directed to the said Elizabeth and to John Jones aforesaid….”  Elizabeth’s answer (signed with her mark) admits that the parties married on 8 March 1783 and cohabited until 16 Dec. 1794 when Thomas “did absent himself from his house with intent he said to go over the mountains to the Eastern part of Pennsylvania,“ that she “had by him seven children,” that she “never did hear of him, or receive any letter from him, or message, or information from him or report to [illegible] a belief that he was alive for more than three years; But … did receive testimony which Induced me and all of my neighbours to believe that [he] was dead: This belief was so strong that letters of administration were granted upon his Estate, and measures taken for making the final disposition of the same,” and so, “under a firm belief that [he] was deceased,” she married on 2 Feb. 1797 John Jones, “with whom I now live, and by whom I have two children … The particular day on which [he] returned I do not recollect but believe it was before Christmas in the year 1799. his return was to me & to the whole neighbourhood as astonishing as would be the resurrection of the dead. The fact is however that he is alive, and now at his ancient home, … altho I must forever lament the misfortune which has befallen me, yet I cannot condemn myself for the Pr-sp-lancy[?], nor blame W. Kyle for pursuing as he now does the legal cause for dissolving that sacred connection which has subsisted between us.”  Acknowledgment: “This Answer of Elisabeth Jones otherwise called Elisabeth Kyle was made & signed by her in my presence and in presence of John Jones her second husband And I can also certify that all the facts set forth in the Answer are absolutely true and within my knowledge: particularly that the belief of Thomas Kyle’s death was Universal, That admin of his Estate was regularly had, and that to my knowledge the debts of said Kyle were paid as if he were deceased. The friendship professed for his wife before he set off much induced the belief of his death also” [signed] Edw Cook.  Divorced 18 Sept. 1801.  FHL film #1023003, images 855-868 (855).

LAKE, Mary v. William.  Petition of Mary Lake (signed with her mark), “Wife of William Lake[,] Mariner,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend William Rush, sworn to 31 Dec. 1799 and filed in Dec. 1799 (but marked #242 Sept. Term 1800, along with the following petition); she “had been married to her said Husband upwards of eighteen years by whom she had eight children five of whom are now living”; grounds, “That on or about the Twenty sixth day of April one Thousand seven hundred and Ninety six she was abandoned by her said Husband who has since Cohabited with a Certain Sally Thaw by whom he has Two Children – that your Petitioner has not since received from her said Husband any support except through the medium of the overseers of the Poor who have some time since Discontinued the same – that your Petitioner[’]s said husband is a Master of a vessel and fully competent to make Provision for your Petitioner.”  Petition marked “May 1801 Discont^d.”  FHL film #1023004, images 6-7, 13-16 (13).

LAKE, Mary v. William.  Petition of Mary Lake (signed with her mark), “Wife of William Lake[,] Mariner,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend William Rush, sworn to 17 Sept. and filed 11 Nov. 1800 at #242 Sept. Term 1800; she “had been Married to her said Husband upwards of Eighteen years by whom she had Eight Children five of whom are now Living”; grounds, “that on or about the Twenty sixth day of April his conduct became such as to render your Petitioner[’]s condition intolerable and her life Burthensome.– by reason of which she was compelled to Withdraw herself from his house and Family– That your Petitioner has not since received from her said Husband any support except through the medium of the overseers of the Poor who have some time since Discontinued the same – that your Petitioner[’]s said husband is a master of a vessel and fully competent to make Provision for your Petitioner.”  Petition marked “May 1801 Discontinued.”  FHL film #1023004, images 8-12 (10).

LAUCK, Hannah v. Joseph.  Petition of Hannah Lauck, who has resided in this State “since her birth,” by her next friend John Hinckel (signed Johannes Hinkel[?]), sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 13 Feb. 1797 and filed that day at #195 March Term 1797; married “on the 25^th day of August last … to Joseph Lauch of the city of Philadelphia quaqer [i.e., Quaker?]”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Joseph Lauch hath since the said marriage at different times by cruel and barbarous treatment and offered such indignities to her person as [to] render her condition intolerable and life burthensome and thereby has forced her to withdraw from his house and family.”  Petition marked “Shff ret^d to Subp[oen]^a ‘Withdrawn.”  FHL film #1023004, images 16-18 (16).

LAWBER, Frederick v. Barbara.  Petition of Frederick Lawber (signed with his mark), “residing in the County of York,” acknowledged before a York Co. judge 20 May 1793 and filed on or before 25 May 1793 when a subpoena was allowed; married “heretofore … a certain Barbara EBERSOLE (now Lawber)”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Barbara Lawber not in the least regarding the said [marriage] Contract, hath violated the same by committing Adultery with a certain Henry Bowman of Washington County, in the State of Maryland, he being a married man, and having a wife in full Life, and that the said Barbara hath confessed herself guilty of the said crime; that she hath been repeatedly admonished, but still continues to live a Prostitute, and separate from the Petitioner.”  Petition marked “Dec^r [17]95 N. B. F. pa[ge]. 178.”  FHL film #1023004, images 19-20 (19); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), p. 80.

LEAMON, Catharine v. Samuel.  Petition “of Catharine Leamon, late Catharine ROLAND” (signed in German script Catharina Leman), “a native of the County of Lancaster in the said Commonwealth,” by her next friend John Roland, dated at Lancaster 28 Jan. 1800 and filed 5 Feb. 1800 at #99 March Term 1800 (subpoena affixed by John Roland to the doors of Samuel’s former residence (now vacant and unoccupied) in New Holland, and of John Roland’s house in New Holland, Lancaster, where he had been residing; served by proclamation); married “about eight years now past … a certain Samuel Leamon of the said County of Lancaster”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Samual, not regarding his matrimonial Vows and Engagements, without any just & reasonable cause, hath wilfully & maliciously deserted and absented himself from the said Catharine for more than four years now last past, and during the whole of said time, the said Samuel hath wilfully & maliciously withheld from the said Catharine all comfort, support & Maintainance, and also leaving the said Catharine burthened with the support and maintainance of two children: and the said Catharine further saith that the said Samuel has left the said County of Lancaster, and gone to some place unknown to the said Catharine.”  Testimony taken 30 July 1800: Frederick Seger, Esqr. (signed F^k Sager[?]), one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster Co., of the village of New Holland, states that he “has known Catharine Leaman, late Catharine Roland, almost since she was a child, about 5 years of age, that she married Samuel “about nine years ago, being then under age, about 17 years of age,” without her father’s consent, and that Samuel abandoned her on 1 Jan. 1796 and “left the country, considerably involved in debt … [and] does not know where the said Samuel Leamon is, that he heard he had been seen in Kentuckee, & also heard it confidently reported that he was dead, but knows nothing of the fact, nor has he heard or seen any thing more of him since June 1796”; Peter Diller, of the Borough of Lancaster, adds that “Catharine has since his desertion of her lived with & been maintained by her father, Jonathan Roland, of New Holland.”  Divorced 4 Sept. 1800.  FHL film #1023004, images 21-37 (26); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 11-13.

LEE, Maria Barbara v. Joseph.  Petition of Maria Barbara Lee, “the wife of Joseph Lee of the City of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for “support,” by her next friend W. M. Read, sworn to before an alderman 28 Dec. 1810 and filed 29 Dec. 1810 at #103 Dec. Term 1810; [marriage place and date and period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the said Joseph [interlined word] hath repeatedly offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable, and hath now withdrawn himself from her and refused to allow her a competent maintenance or support.”  FHL film #1023004, images 38-41 (40).

LEONARD, Elizabeth v. Joseph.  Petition of Elizabeth Leonard (signed with her mark), by her next friend Joseph Server “of the township of Germantown in the County of Philadelphia Chairmaker,” sworn to before the Chief Justice 6 May 1802 and filed that day at #123 Sept. Term 1802 (defendant served by proclamation); married “in January in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight”; cohabited “until the fifteenth day of February in the year aforesaid”; grounds: “that the said Joseph Leonard from the said fifteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Elizabeth and such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four years and more without any just or reasonable cause and yet doth continue to absent himself from her the said Elizabeth.”  Testimony taken 11 March 1803: William Tuston, Jr. (affirmed), of the Northern Liberties of the City of Philadelphia, brass-founder, aged 32 or thereabouts, states “that he is a Brother of Elizabeth Leonard, and knew the said Joseph Leonard between one and two years previous to his marriage with the Libellant,” that he was present at their marriage in Jan. 1798 by Jacob Servoss, Esq., a Justice of the Peace of Philadelphia Co., that “immediately after[,] they resided at the house of William Rambo in the Northern Liberties,” that they cohabited there “for a month and six weeks,” when Joseph told him “that he was going to Wayne County in order to bring down some rafts of lumber which he had bought … [and] expected to return in about six weeks,” leaving Elizabeth to board at Rambo’s, and that when he did not return, “she went to her father’s, William Tuston Senior, at Germantown, where she has since continued to reside”; Susanna Tuston (signed Susan Tuston) (affirmed), of the Northern Liberties, aged 30 or thereabouts, states that she is the wife of William Tuston, Jr., the brother of Elizabeth, whom she has known nine or ten years.  Divorced 22 March 1803.  FHL film #1023004, images 42-53 (44).

LESHER, John v. Margaret.  Petition of John Lesher sworn to at Philadelphia before the Chief Justice 6 Sept. 1786 and filed 29 Sept. 1786 (defendant served at Oley, Berks Co.); married“on the fourth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty three at Reading in the County of [next four words careted] Berks in this State … to a certain Margaret HESS”; cohabited “from that time until the first – day of November in the year one thousand seven hundred eighty”; grounds: “that the said Margaret Lesher from the [dates added later] first – day of September in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty and long before hath totally alienated her affections from your Libellant and given herself up to lewd Practices and to having adulterous Conversation and intercourse with Lewd and debauched men, insomuch that a certain Jacob Weaver of Berks County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Esquire at a Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Goal Delivery held at Reading in and for the same County on the seventh day of November, which was in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty before your Honors the Judges of the Honorable [next two words careted] the Supreme Court and of the said Court of Oyer and Terminer was indicted Tried and found guilty of [next three words careted] her the said Margaret, the wife of your Libellant, From all which it is Evident that the said Margaret Lesher has been found guilty of Adultery.”  Margaret’s answer (signed by her Procter), filed 2 April 1787, denies committing adultery and alleges that John “hath lived in open & shameless Adultery for many years past with one Catharine Hirt & hath committed the Crime of Adultery with [her] in many & repeated Instances & in divers places in the City of Philadelphia in the County of Philadelphia in the County of Montgomery & in the County of Berks.”  Petition marked “July [17]89 n.b.f [Docket] pa[age] 87.”  FHL film #1023004, images 59-66 (59).  See also the following case.

LESHER, Margaret v. John.  Petition of Margaret Lesher (signed with her mark) for “such Order & Decree for her Maintenance & Support,” by her next friend Jacob Morgan, Jr. (not sworn to or affirmed), filed on or before 27 Sept. 1789 when a subpoena was awarded (marked “Defend^t is to be found on 3^d Street on the West side thereof near Callowhill Street at M^r Egnars the House is lately Built and they are now Building Fronting on third Street”); married “to John Lesher of Oley [in Chester County] about twenty four years ago”; cohabited “in Harmony & Comfort for about twelve years”; grounds: “at the end of which time thes^d John Lesher attached himself to lewd Women & begun to treat your Petitioner with Neglect & contempt. That of late he hath proceeded to abandon & desert your Petitioner entirely, hath turned her out of Doors & left her without any provision or Means of Support or Maintenance, by Reason of which your Petitioner is reduced to great Distress & the Want of Common Necessaries.”  Petition marked “June [17]94 abated by Death of | Def^t [Docket] pa[ge]. 56.”  FHL film #1023004, images 54-58 (56).

LESHER, Susannah v. John “the younger.”  Petition of Susannah Lesher (signed Susanna Lesher) “of Oley Township in the County of Berks,” by her next friend John Hart, sworn to at Philadelphia before the Chief Justice 20 Aug. 1790 and filed that day; married “in the month of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty three to one John Lesher the younger late of the Township and County afs^d”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the s^d John Lesher on or about the third Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight at the County afs^d did commit Adultery with a certain Barbara Dehart and on the body of her the s^d Barbara a male Bastard child then and there did beget of which offence he the s^d John stands indicted in the court of General quarter Sessions of the peace in and for the County [next word careted] afsd and from which prosecution he hath since fled before conviction thereof and hath also wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself and still doth wilfully and maliciously desert and absent himself without any reasonable cause from your Petitioner and Libellant.”  Petition marked “Dec^r [17]94 n.b.f.  [Docket] pa[ge]. 162.”  FHL film #1023004, images 67-69 (67).

LEVENGOOD/LEVERGOOD/LIEVENOOD, Rebecca v. Jacob.  Petition of Rebecca Levengood [or Levergood?] (signed with the mark of Rebecca Levergood) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, “by her next friend Joseph Bitting [next three words careted] Isaac Bechtell Bechell,” affirmed before a Supreme Court justice 5 Sept. 1791 and filed the same day (alias subpoena was directed to Jacob of Chester Co., yeoman, with note that “Defendant lives in Coventry Township”); married “on the [blank] day of October in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & Seventy”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Jacob Levengood from the fourteenth day of May in the Year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and eighty eight and often Since in violation of his Marriage Vow hath ill treated his family, by threatening to dispose of his property and abandon them without Support and hath offered such cruel and barbarous treatment and other indignities to her person as to endanger her life and render her Condition intolerably burthensome.”  Testimony taken in Montgomery Co. 7 Jan. 1792: Thomas Crawford (affirmed) states that he has known the parties for four years past and upwards, that the Defendant threatened to shoot his wife when she refused to sign a deed conveying their land, and that “[Jacob] has a Small Plantation but does not know how much and that he has some Personal Estate but he believes not much; Ulrich Switzer (signed in German script Ulrich Schweitzer) (affirmed) states that he has known the parties for fifteen years and upwards, “That somewhat upwards of three years ago the said Jacob became deranged in his understanding and was for a time very Troublesome to his Family and Neighbours and after being a while in that Condition was put under the Care of a Doctor where he remained a considerable time and that when he returned home from the Doctor he appeared somewhat recovered yet evident marks of Insanity were visible upon him That since the time he became deranged he has often heard the said Rebecca complain of her Husband[’]s Beating her and otherwise misusing her   That he has a Small Plantation in Coventry Township Chester County which he thinks is about Seventy Acres and also some (though not much) Personal Estate”; Joseph Bitting, Sr. (affirmed) states that “about three years ago he the Deponant was Desired to come to chester County to his Soninlaw Jacob Lievengood, who was at that time out of his Sences, and the Deponant and others thought proper to take him from his family (as some of the family was in Danger with him) to a Phisition John Borne and after he had been there some time returned home and sometime after the Deponent, went to see said Jacob Lievingood and found him somewhat better but still in his opinion thought him a Dangerous person to be left with his family”; Joseph Bitting Jr., Peter Bitting, and Philip Bitting (all affirmed) state “that they the said Deponants at suntry [sic] times, for some time past, seen[?] Jacob Leivengood their brotherinlaw who appeared to them not to be in his sences & Dangerous to his family and that they took him to John Borne D^r in order to be releiv^d of his Disorder.”   Divorced (as Livergood) from bed & board 2 April 1793.  FHL film #1023004, images 70-83 (74).

LIGHTWOOD, Jacob v. Eleanor.  Petition of Jacob Lightwood affirmed 11 Dec. 1797 and filed that day (served by proclamation); married “on the TwelfthNinteenth [or Thirteenth?] day of December in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty one at the County of Philadelphia”; cohabited “for about five years”; grounds: “That for about Ten years last past the said Eleanor forgetting the duty she owed the Libellant withdrew her affection from him without any cause but her own evilminded disposition and did on the Twenty fourth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety five at the County of Philadelphia commit adultery with a certain Simon Vanscriver and from that time to the [changed from ‘this’] bringing of this Libel hath continued to commit adultery with the said Simon and that the said Eleanor hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented herself from the said Jacob without a reasonable excuse for and during the term of Ten years.”  Testimony taken 4 March 1805: John Stevens, of Biberry Twp., Philadelphia Co., states that he is aged 68, has known the parties for many years, that they were married in his present “some time he thinks in the year [1781],” that the Libellant has ever since lived in his neighborhood, “that his wife left him a great number of years ago”; Mary Kelt, of Biberry Twp., Philadelphia Co., a married woman, states that she is aged between 52 and 53, has known the Libellant since he was a child and the defendant since her marriage to the Libellant “upwards of twenty years ago,” at which she was present, and that they lived together for five or six years, and that “after that time the defendant went away from her husband, which must be about seventeen years ago, ” when they were living in Bucks Co., saying she “did not like her husband,” that “he was a little ugly fellow, and she would not end her days with him,” but made no complaint against him, and that “she was with child by one Leep, “and “liked Leep’s little finger better than her husband’s whole body,” and has not since been seen by the deponent.  Testimony taken 5 March 1805: John Fulmer, of the Northern Liberties, farmer, states that he is between 41 and 42 years of age, has known Eleanor about 13 years but never before saw the Libellant, that Eleanor “came to live in the family of this deponent about thirteen years ago, and continued to live with him about seven years, during all which time the deponent lived in the Northern Liberties, That about three years after the said Eleanor came to live with the deponent, she had a child born, and she told the deponent that Simon Ketcher, who lived also with the deponent, was the father of the child, and the said Simon told this deponent in the presence of the said Eleanor that he was the father, that the said Simon was charged by the said Eleanor with being the father of the child, and was taken up on a warrant, and gave security for the maintenance of the child, which warrant this deponent assisted in executing, That this deponent dismissed the said Simon from his service, and afterwards, had a black man hired, whom he was also obliged to dismiss, for fear the said Eleanor would have connection with him, as she said if she could not get a white man she would have him, That the deponent continued to keep the said Eleanor in his family about four years after the birth of her child, because he had a family of small children, and she was a very useful and serviceable servant, That the said Eleanor was a good deal addicted to liquor, which the deponent was obliged to keep out of her way, and her general character was that she would go after men, and did not care whether they were black or white, so as she could have connection with them, that ever since she left this deponent[’]s, she has lived with a brother in law of this deponent in the Northern Liberties, [and that] When she first came to live with the deponent, she said her name was Eleanor LEIP.  Divorced 5 March 1805.  FHL film #1023004, images 84-100 (98).

LINKER, Daniel v. Mary.  Petition of Daniel Linker (signed with his mark), “of Northern Liberties of the City of Philadelphia Cordwainer,” sworn to before an Associate Judge [of ?; date not stated] and filed 16 Dec. 1801 at #363 Dec. Term 1801; married “on the [blank] day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Mary in violation of her marriage vow, hath, for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery.”  FHL film #1023004, images 101-103 (101).

LIVERGOOD – see LEVENGOOD, above.

LIVINGSTON, Ann Hume v. H. B.  Petition of Ann Hume Livingston, by her next friend Dr. Wm. Shippen Junior, sworn to 3 Dec. 1789 and filed the same day; married “Col. H. B. Livingston of the State of New York on the twenty sixth day of March 1780”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Col. Livingston regardless of the solemn marriage contract hath since been guilty of the crime of adultery with a certain lewd and dissolute woman, and had by her divers children.”  Petition marked “Quæ.[i.e., quaeritur = it is questioned?] if any proceedings were | had on this petition.”  FHL film #1023004, images 104-105 (104).

LLOYD, Mary v. John.  Petition “of JohnHenry FRITZ, the father and next friend of Mary Lloyd, wife of John Lloyd” [both signing], sworn to by Mary before the Chief Justice 8 June 1795 and filed that day; married 13 April 1794; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That afterwards to wit on the first day of February in the year One thousand seven hundred & ninety five, the said John Lloyd knowingly entered into a second marriage with one Elizabeth Reed, in violation of the previous vow he had made to the said Mary his former wife whose marriage was then and still is existing. That the said John Lloyd for the premises has been legally prosecuted & convicted of the crime of Begamy, as ap in the court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Philadelphia as appears by & on the Records of the said Court and a transcript of the same herewith and exhibited and presented [not included].”  Divorced 7 Sept. 1795.  FHL film #1023004, images 106-110 (108).

LLOYD a/k/a LORD, Sarah v. Benjamin.  Petition of Sarah Lloyd (signed with her mark), by her next friend Jacob Coats, dated 19 Nov., sworn to 20 Nov., and filed 21 Nov. 1801 at #176 Nov. Term 1801; that she “is the lawful wife of Benjamin Lloyd, Mariner” [place and date of marriage not stated]; cohabited “more than six years in the Township of the Northern Liberties in the County of Philadelphia”; grounds: “that said Benjamin Lloyd has treated your petitioner with great inhumanity for four years past &ndasph; has withheld from her the kindness & tenderness of a husband – has turned her out of doors – has outraged and beaten her person – has in many things treated her with great indignity and as your Petitioner is informed has forfeited his marriage vow by cohabiting with other women & thereby become guilty of the foul crime of Adultery — So that the condition of your Petitioner is intolerable.”  Testimony taken 2 Jan. 1802: Thomas Barr, of the Northern Liberties of the City of Philadelphia, states that he has known the parties for about two years, that they lived together until about two months ago, that Benjamin accompanied him to a house in Southwark where he went to bed with a young woman last fall.  Testimony taken 7 Jan. 1802: Mary Schilley (signed with her mark), of the Northern Liberties of the City of Philadelphia, states that she has known the parties for about seven or eight months, in the Northern Liberties, as Benjamin’s bound servant, that Sarah left him about two months ago “and refused to live with him on account of his ill usage of her,” and that she witnessed Benjamin putting Sarah out of doors.  Testimony taken 12 Jan. 1802: Catharine Page, of the City of Philadelphia, states that she has known the parties for seven or eight years past, and lived some time with them, and that they lived together until about ten weeks ago, and that he put her out of doors.  Averment dated and filed 22 March 1802: “And now the Twenty Second day of March [1802], the said Sarah Lloyd by John W Vancleve her Attorney avers that the said parties bear the surname of Lord as well as Lloyd, viz the name of Sarah Lord & Benjamin Lord, although the said Complainant hath sued & the said Respondent both appeared and answered in this suit by the Surname of Lloyd.”  Divorced 22 March 1803.  FHL film #1023004, images 111-126, 129-130 (113).

LOGUE, Dorothy v. Thomas.  Petition of Dorothy Logue (signed with her mark), “the wife of Thomas Logue of the City of Philadelphia Taylor,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Henry Loutz, sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 2 February March 1802 and filed 18 Feb. 1803 at #113 March Term 1803; married “Sometime in the Year Seventeen hundred and Seventy seven or Seventeen hundred and Seventy eight”; “lived and cohabited with him” [period not stated]; grounds: “the said Thomas for a considerable time past hath given himself up to idleness and intoxication and hath not for many years past in any degree contributed to her support but hath so cruelly and barbarously treated on repeated occasions as to endanger her life, and has offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable.”  Petition marked “Divorce from bed & board | Decre^d.”  FHL film #1023004, images 127-128, 131-132 (131).

LOLLER, Dorothy v. Alexander.  Petition of Dorothy Loller, “of the County of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend John Evans, affirmed before a Supreme Court Justice 19 April 1796 and filed that day at #52 Sept. Term 1796 (defendant served by publication); married at Philadelphia Co. 18 Feb. 1776 “to a certain Alexander Loller of the said county Grocer”; cohabited for about 1613 years; grounds: “That for about three years last past the said Alexander hath maliciously abandoned his family And that the said Alexander follows the trade of a grocer, and is able to contribute to the support of the Libellant as by his marriage vow he is bound to do.”  Interrogatories filed under #52 Sept. Term 1796 are marked “Divorce pronounced”; see next case.  FHL film #1023004, images 133-136, 146-149 (146).

LOLLER (LALOR on interrogatories), Dorothy v. Alexander.  Petition of Dorothy Loller, “of the County of Montgomery,” by her next friend Isaiah Hubbs, for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony, affirmed before a Supreme Court Justice at Philadelphia 7 Jan. 1797 and filed that day; married “in [changed from ‘on’] the Month of February — in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy six at the County of Philadelphia … to a certain Alexander Loller of the said County Farmer”; cohabited twelve years; grounds: “That about Eight Years last past the said Alexander forgetting the duty he owed the Libellant withdrew his affection from her without any cause but his own evilminded disposition and did on the [blank] day of [blank] in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & ninety [blank space] commit adultery with a certain Hannah Thomas and from that time to the exhibition of the Libel hath continued to live in adultery with the said Hannah.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 30 March 1797: Isaiah Howell, of Montgomery Co. states that he has known the Libellant about 25 years and the respondent about 20 years, that the parties were married in his presence at his home in Montgomery Co. more than 15 years ago, and lived together until “their separation about three or four years ago, because “a short time before the separation, the Respondent was charged by a certain Hannah Thomas with being the Father of a female bastard child of which she had been delivered, that the Respondent avowed to this Deponent that he was the Father of the child, and said as he meant to care of it he did not care who knew it, that thereupon a dispute, as this Deponent believes, arose between the Libellant and Respondent and they separated, that upon the separation the Respondent and the said Hannah Thomas took house together, cohabited, and lived together as man and wife, had have had one other child, as it is generally believed, and that they have ever since, and still do, live and cohabit together as aforesaid.”  Joseph Greene (signed with his mark), of Montgomery Co., house-carpenter, states that he has known both parties about 11 years, that he lived in the same house with them until their separation about three years ago, and “continued to live with the Libellant about a year after their separation, and that they separated on account of Hannah Thomas, with whom the Respondent has “ever since lived and cohabited as man and wife, and have had one child, a boy.”  Divorced 1 April 1797.   FHL film #1023004, images 137-145 (141), 150-153.

LONG, Ann v. David.  Petition of Ann Long, “of Lancaster County, … a Citizen of the State of Pennsy^a & has resided therein for upwards of eight years past,” by her next friend Hugh Miller, sworn to at Lancaster Co. 25 Dec. 1796 and filed 23 Jan. 1797 at #106 Dec. Term 1796; [date and place of marriage and length of cohabitation not stated: “your Petitioner hath been intermarid with David Long & have lived together as Husband & Wife“]; grounds: “That the said David Long hath wilfully and maliciously deserted your Petitioner without any reasonable cause and hath been absent from her & his usual place of abode for upwards of eight years & That She is at present ignorant of his place of residence.”  Testimony taken 28 Feb. 1799: Bathsheba Colman states that “she has known Ann Long … as long as she has known any person & that she has known David Long … about twenty years, that Ann has constantly lived in Pa., that the parties lived together for about four years, and in 1787 or 1788 “David left his wife … & home on business as was supposed with an intention as deponent understood of shortly returning, that after the lapse of several months the said David did return & remained a few days with his wife and then went away and has continued absent from his said wife ever since,” that he “removed to the neighborhood of Fort Pitt as deponent understood where she believes he has continued to reside, That for about four years last past deponent has been informed he has lived with another woman, [and] That the said David has been absent from the Said Ann about eleven years.”  Petition marked “Stuck off Doq^t 1802.”   FHL film #1023004, images 154-169 (167); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 10-11.

LONG, Jane v. John.  Petition of Jane Long (signed Jinney Long), “of Drumore Township Lancaster County,” by her next friend John McConnell, sworn to at Lancaster Co. 22 April 1800 and filed 9 Aug. 1800 at #339 Sept. Term 1800 (subpoena left 9 Dec.1800 at the house of Robert Long, deceased, in Drumore Twp., where John last resided); married “about eight years last past”; grounds: “That about five months after the said intermarriage the said John maliciously deserted her without any reasonable cause and hath continued absent ever since that time.”  Testimony taken 20 Dec. 1801 (unsigned): Robert King, Esq., states that the parties married in the year 1790, that the defendant deserted his wife in the Spring of 1791 and “told him that he was determined never to live with her,” and that Jane “is a near neighbor to him and is generally esteemed in the neighbourhood”; James Morrison states that “about six or seven Months after the intermarriage … the said defendant separated himself from the said Plaintiff without any just cause as this deponent believes.”  Divorced 28 Dec. 1801.  FHL film #1023004, images 170-186 (182); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 13-14.

LORD, Dorothy v. Thomas – see LOGUE, Dorothy v. Thomas, above

LORD, Margaret v. John.  Petition of Margaret Lord (signed with her mark), by her next friend Malcolm McCloud (signed Malcom McLeod), sworn to 4 Dec. 1802 and filed 6 Dec. 1802 at #284 Dec. Term 1802; married 14 Aug. 1787; cohabited “from that time … until the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety six”; grounds: “the said John to wit on the twentieth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety six knowingly entered into a second marriage and was contracted in marriage with a certain Barbara Jeats” [of New York, according to the interrogatories].  FHL film #1023004, images 187-192 (187).

LORYE/LORIE/LOWRY, Peter v. Jane.  Petition of Peter Lorie (changed from Lowry; signed Peter Lorye[?]), “of the [blank] of Philadelphia,” sworn to in open Supreme Court 7 Sept. 1801 and filed that day at #1 Dec. Term 1801 (subpoena issued to “Jane Lowry”); married 23 July 1786; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Jane in violation of her marriage vow hath, for a considerable space of time, to wit; for the space of nine months or thereabouts given herself up to Adulterous practices and been guilty of Adultery and Cohabitation.”  Answer of Jane Lowry (signed Jane Loury), sworn to 14 Dec. 1801, admits the marriage on 23 July 1786 but denies committing adultery, and alleges that Peter has committed adultery.  Answer is marked “15 Dec 1801 on Motion of M^r Ross Issue ord^d to be tried by a Jury Commission aw^d to Baltimore.”  FHL film #1023004, images 231-237 (233).

LOVE, Elizabeth v. Benjamin.  Petition of Elizabeth Love (signed Eliza Amelia Love) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Wm. Gard[?], dated 2 April 1793, sworn to at Philadelphia 3 April 1793, and filed 5 April 1793; married “on the [blank] day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty six … to a certain Benjamin Love, now of the Northern Liberties of the County of Philadelphia”; cohabited “from that time until the month of March – last”; grounds: “that the said Benjamin from the month of September in the year one thousand Seven hundred eighty six hath totally alienated his affections from your libellant, and by cruel and barbarous treatment hath repeatedly endangered the Life of your Libellant particularly within the space of three months last past, and has offered such Indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable and life burthensome, and hath thereby forced her to withdraw from his house and family.”  Petition marked “Sep[t].[17]95 n.b.f.  pa[ge]. 170.”  FHL film #1023004, images 193-197 (195).

LOVINGGER, John v. Louisa.  Petition of John Lovingger [“Lovengers” on the cover], “of the City of Philadelphia … a Citizen of this State and having resided therein for Several years previous to filing this Petition,” sworn to before the Chief Justice at Philadelphia 16 Jan. 1800 and filed that day at #48 March Term 1800; married “to Luisa [sic] ELLENBERG[?; possibly ELLENBERY] in the month of March 1796”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Luisa without reasonable Cause, hath committed Adultery with a person whose name is unknown to your Petitioner.”  Testimony taken 23 April 1800: Charles Rhabach (signed with his mark), states that he is aged 66, that “the said Louisa has frequently committed adultery with this deponent, and that she has deserted from her husband about a year & a half, but where she now is, this deponent cannot tell, … [and] that about a year and half ago the said Louisa, after having been in company with this deponent at Gray’s Ferry, was called for by two Frenchmen in a carriage, with whom she went away.”  Testimony taken 6 May 1800: Christina Plankenberg (signed with her mark) states that she is aged 32, that “she occupied the lower part of the house in which John and Louisa Lovinger resided and about three years ago, coming home about dusk she found the front door of the house which opened into her room locked, and shortly afterwards the defendant came down stairs in company with a young man from the country by the name of Steward, who as this deponent has understood is since dead.”  Testimony taken 11 Dec. 1800: Catharine Richter (signed with her mark), states “that she is a washer-woman and of the age of thirty two years,” that she was present at the parties’ marriage, that one day in March 1797 she found Louisa in bed with a young man whose name she said was Steward and that “her husband was away the whole week at the store,” that Louisa shortly afterwards deserted him, and that she does not know where Louisa is now.  Divorced (as Lovingger) 12 Dec. 1800.  FHL film #1023004, images 198-212 (211).

LOWRY, Elizabeth v. John.  Petition of Elizabeth Lowry (signed with her mark), sworn to before a justice of the peace at Cumberland Co. 23 March 1792 and filed 2 April 1792 (subpoena issued to John Lowry, late of Cumberland Co., yeoman; returned, not found); “the said Elizabeth was legally intermarried with the said John Lowry & lived with him in that Part of Great Britain called Ireland for the Space of thirteen Weeks when he deserted her leaving her altogether destitute of Support or provision – & came to Cumberland County in Pennsylvania  That your Petitioner followed him & lived with him Six Days in said State.  That the said John under Pretence of taking her to North Carolina decoyed her into Lancaster County in the said State of Pennsylvania where he again deserted her taking with him all the Money your Petitioner had acquired in his Absence & —[?]ing & stripping her of all her valuable Apparel  That from that Period which was in the Month of July 1787.  Your Petitioner hath not seen nor heard from her said Husband & that he hath wilfully deserted & abandoned her from that Time until the present Day – [¶] That your Petitioner hath resided near Seven Years in the said County of Cumberland.”  FHL film #1023004, images 213-230 (215); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Cumberland County Pennsylvania Divorces, 1789-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1994), pp. 4-5.

MCARTHER, Alexander v. Sarah.  Petition of Alexander McArther, “of the City of Philadelphia Cordwainer,” sworn to before an alderman at the City of Philadelphia 29 Sept. 1789 and filed on or before 1 Oct. 1789 when a subpoena was awarded (served on 3 Oct. 1789); married “about nine years since in the County of Antrim in Ireland … to a certain Sarah CURRIE”; cohabited “from that time for near four years succeeding, at the Expiration of which time the prospect and hope of obtaining an easier livelihood and of obtaining greater gain by the pursuit of his business [next four words careted] in the United States induced your Libellant to emigrate to America and to Settle himself in the City of Philadelphia af[ore]s[ai]d, where he [interlined word] prosecuted his business [next word careted] Trade with attention and Industry and about Twenty months [next word careted] since supposing himself able to maintain a family, took the first opportunity of writing to the said Sarah his wife, requesting her to come to and settle live with him in this City, where in Consequence of his said requests she arrived in the month of July in the year 1788”; grounds: “that the said Mathias Sarah from the month of July aforesaid in the year aforesaid hath totally alienated her affections from her said husband and hath given herself up to vicious Conversation and practices and hath wantonly destroyed his property, injured his Credit in business and threatened to reduce him to Beggary and wretchedness  And more particularly that the said Sarah since her said arrival hath often at the City of Philadelphia aforesaid run at and endeavoured to Strike your Libellant with sharp Forks and thrown Bottles hammers and other dangerous Instruments Weapons at the head of your Libellant,  From all which it is Evident that the said Sarah hath by Cruel and barbarous Treatment endangered the Life of your Libellant and hath offered such Indignities to her person as to render his Condition intolerable and Life burthensome.”  Petition marked “July [17]90 Discont^d [i.e., suit discontinued] pa[ge]. 370.”  FHL film #1023004, images 366-370 (368).

MCBRIDE, Elizabeth v. Andrew.  Petition of Elizabeth McBride (signed with her mark), by her next friend Thomas Patton, sworn to and filed 7 July 1791 (subpoena issued to Andrew “of the City of Philadelphia, yeoman”); married “about two years ago”; cohabited “ever since”; grounds: “that the said Andrew for about a year past has treated your Petitioner very ill, and from his barbarous usage your Petitioners Life is in Danger.”  Andrew’s plea and answer dated at Philadelphia 7 Sept. 1792 and filed 10 Sept. 1792: “that altho he cannot disavow or gainsay the marriage in the said Libel mentioned and contained yet that he the said Andrew hath never offered any insults or indignities to the said person of the said Elizabeth unless the same was occasioned by the violence of her temper and Disposition and by the indifferent and provoking conduct of her the said Elizabeth towards him the said Andrew.”  Divorced 7 Jan. 1792.  FHL film #1023003, images 371-381 (375).

MCCLURE, Margaret v. David.  Petition of Margaret McClure, “wife of David M^cClure of the township of Mona[g]han in the County of York,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Jonathan Wallace, dated and sworn to at York Co. 11 June 1802 and filed 20 July 1802; married “about thirteen years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the said David for [next word careted] within the space of five years from the present time often maliciously turned your petitioner out of doors without any reasonable cause & has within the same period oftentimes by his cruel and barbarous treatment endangered the life of your petitioner & has also oftentimes within the same period offered such indignities to your petitioners person as to render her condition intollerable and her life burdensome and thereby forced her to withdraw from his house with to secure her personal safety & to provide for the support of herself and[?] said children thru the benevolence of her friends the said David having —ally[?] within the said period omitted neglected & refused to make provision for the Support of your petitioner & her said children. That the said David M^cClure on the complaint of your Petitioner who by his cruel & barbarous treatment was obliged to withdraw from his house & seek protection from the laws was indicted for assaulting & beating your petitioner so that her life was despaired of was convicted on his own confession by subscription to the Court as fully appears by the record of the said conviction & sentence of the Court thereupon. That the said David M^cClure became seised in right of your Petitioner of [next word careted] about one hundred & eighty seven acres of one hundred & eighty seven acres of arable land & about five hundred acres of warrant land situate in Monahan  township in the County of York the inheritance of your Petitioner subject to the thirds of your petitioners mother in & out of the same.”  Divorced from bed & board 26 March 1803.  FHL film #1023004, images 382-398 (388).

MCCORMICK, Esther v. Charles.  Petition of Esther McCormick dated at Philadelphia 5 July 1786, sworn to before the Chief Justice 17 July 1786, and filed that day (subpoena awarded 4 Jan. 1787); married “[next six words careted] about in years since, to wit on the [blank] day of [blank] in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and [blank] at Lebanon in the County of Lancaster”; cohabited “until the fall of last year”; grounds: “the said Charles M^cCormick since the month of August last [next word careted] 7 and long before, totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and has given himself up to Lew practices and to adulterous Conversation and Intercourse with Lewd women, and hath treated your [next word careted] Libellant with the most violent and unmerited abuse, so that by the blows and wounds he hath at different times given her with Clubs and Sticks, as well as with his hands the Life of your Libellant has been and continues daily to be exposed to the most imminent and alarming danger  From all of which it is Evident that the said Charles M^cCormick hath been guilty of Adultery, and of such cruel and unjustifiable Conduct towards his said wife.”  Petition marked “Quæ if any proceedings were had on this petition.”  FHL film #1023004, images 399-401 (399); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), p. 1.

MCCOY, Isabella v. James.  Petition of Isabella McCoy, by her next friend Hugh McEntire (signed Hugh McAntier), sworn to before a Supreme Court Judge 3 Dec. 1798 and filed 5 Dec. 1798; married “a certain James M^cCoy of Cecil County in the State of Maryland in the Month of December in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred & Ninety two, that after her intermarriage with the said James M^cCoy they resided with her father William McEntire in the County of Lancaster untill the month of March in the year one thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety three; then Your Petitioner went with her husband to Cecil County in the State of Maryland aforesaid for about the space of three Months, then your Petitioner with her Husband returned again to her fathers, and resided with him untill the first of March in the Year one thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety four– at which time her said husband left her to reside with her father and went to Cecil County in the State of Maryland and remained there for the space of a year– then her said husband returned to her and they resided on a place of her fathers in Lancaster County untill the month of September in the Year One thousand seven Hundred and Ninety five– then the said James M^cCoy after beating and abusing your Petitioner seperated himself from her and continued seperate from her untill the Month of June in the Year one thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Seven– then the said James M^cCoy came and proposed to live with your Petitioner and promised to treat her well and took her to reside again in Cecil County in the State of Maryland – where She resided with him untill the Month of February in the Year One thousand Seven hundred and Ninety eight– during which period her said husband frequently beat and abused her and treated her in a very barbarous and cruel manner. by [next word careted] in dragging her by the hair through the house and whipping her with great severity with a Cowskin then her said husband sent her home to her father’s, and in a few days after wrote to her father requesting him not to send her back– as he was determined never to live with her again In consequence of the treatment abovementioned.”   FHL film #1023004, images 402-409 (405); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 8-9.

MCCREA, Margaret v. William Archibald.  Petition of Margaret McCrea for a divorce for bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend William Anderson, dated at Philadelphia 28 Nov. 1796, sworn to before a Supreme Court Judge that day, and filed that day at #368 Dec. Term 1796; married “at the County of Philadelphia” 5 June 1784; cohabited “from [next word careted] that time until present day middle of April last”; grounds: “that the said William for several years past hath by cruel and barbarous Treatment endangered the Life of your Libellant and hath offered such Indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable, to make her Life burthensome and thereby force her to withdraw from his family and doth still continue to act and conduct himself towards your Libellant in the Same manner.”  Testimony taken 18 Dec. 1795: Swen Warner; Fanny McCrea, stating “That she is the daughter of the libellant & defendant …”; Leniah Anderson (signed with her mark), servant; Thomas Humphrey Cushing, lodger.   FHL film #1023003, images 414-416 (414), 427-432, 436-440.

MCCREA, Margaret v. William Archibald.  Petition of Margaret McCrea, by her next friend Anthony Cuthbert, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 5 Nov. 1800 and filed that day at #109 Dec. Term 1800; married “at the County of Philadelphia” 5 June 1784; cohabited “from that time until the Month of May in the year or our Lord One thousand seven hundred and Ninety five”; grounds: “that the said William, from the said Month of May in the same year hath wilfully and Maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Margaret and such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four Years and more, without any Just or reasonable cause, and yet doth continue so to absent himself from the society of her the said Margaret.”  Testimony taken 18 March 1801: Joseph Ogden; Lena Anderson (signed with her mark).  Divorced 25 March 1801, as certified 1 April 1801.  FHL film #1023003, images 410-413, 417-426 (417), 433-435, 441-442.

MCDONALD, Alexander v. Eleanor.  Petition of Alexander McDonald sworn to before a Philadelphia Justice of the Peace 27 Aug. 1794 and filed on or before 6 Jan. 1795 when a subpoena was awarded; married “on the sixteenth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & eighty three at the County of Philadelphia … Eleanor M^cDonald, late Eleanor COFFEE”; cohabited “from that time until the twentieth of August of the year one thousand seven hundred & ninety four”; grounds: “that the said Eleanor from the twenty fifth [next word careted] Day of June last past until the fourteenth [next word careted] Day of July next afterwards (during which time your Libellant was absent from home on his own private business) having totally alienated her affections from your Libellant & given herself up to lewd practices & to the having adulterous conversation & intercourses with lewd men; and more particularly that the said Eleanor from the said twenty fifth of June until the fourteenth of July last past, live in the County aforesaid in open & avowed adultery, with a certain William Collins from all which it is evident that the Eleanor [sic] hath been guilty of Adultery.”  Marked “Jan^y 1800 N.b.f. pa[ge].38.”  FHL film #1023004, images 443-447 (445).

MCELWEE, Rebecca v. John.  Petition of Rebecca McElwee, “Wife of John M^c Elwee of the City of Philadelphia Glass and Colour Merchant,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Thomas Biggs, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 20 Nov. 1799 and filed 27 Feb. 1800 at #173 March Term 1800 (defendant served); married 2 June 1788; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said John in innumerable Instances for six years last past has behaved to the petitioner with the utmost unkindness and Cruelty has beat abused and turned her out of doors and offered such Indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable and Life burthensome and particularly in the month of September last repeatedly declared (at Wilmington in the State of Delaware to which place the petitioner had fled for Safety, in order to avoid the yellow fever raging in Philadelphia) that the Petitioner should never return to his house again.” Testimony sworn to 21 March 1801: Mary Campbell (signed with her mark), “that she lived in the service of the Parties to this Cause for about two years, and left their service about two years ago …”; John Way, “of the Borough of Wilmington in the State of Delaware.” Testimony sworn to in open Supreme Court 28 March 1801: Solomon Savage states “that Edward Savage of the said City Gentlemen at present occupies a Shop the house N^o 70. South fourth Street in the City of Philadelphia, which house he has taken on lease from the said John M^cElwee the respondent at the rate of four hundred dollars per annum payable quarterly that the deponent has heard the said John M^cElwee the said House washer, that the deponent understands and believes the next door house to the Northward N^o 68 to belong to the said John Savage [next word careted above the foregoing] M^cElwee and has been informed the Tenant pays or has contracted to pay rent for it at the rate of Two hundred Dollars per annum & further saith not.”; William Haydon, of the City of Philadelphia.  Divorced from bed & board, and John ordered to pay $200 in alimony plus costs.  John was arrested 7 Sept. 1801 for nonperformance, and attachment against his property awarded 16 Dec. 1801.  Affidavit of John McElwee, sworn to 7 Sept. 1801, states “That in the month of July 1800 he sailed from this country to Europe on his necessary business, from whence he did not return until April 1801 ….”  FHL film #1023004, images 448-473 (472).

MCFARLAND, Margaret v. Kennedy.  Petition of Margaret McFarland (signed with her mark) for divorce from bed & board, by her next friend John Miller, sworn to 11 Feb. 1799 and filed 12 Feb. 1799 at #109 March Term 1799; married “about eighteen years since … by whom she has, now living, two children”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That for above two years past her said husband has been most violently addicted to strong drink and has entirely neglected to contribute any thing to the support of his family; the whole burden of which has fallen on your Petitioner. In addition to this neglect, he is constantly committing the most outrageous abuse on the person of your Petitioner, frequently to the shame and disturbance of the neighbourhood, and in fits of rage and intoxication, has made very serious attempts upon her life. That he frequently, in the most wanton manner destroys the little property your Petitioner is possessed of, and squanders the money earned by her hard industry for herself and her children. That by thus abandoning and distressing his family – by his cruel and barbarous treatment, and th continued offers of indignities to her person, he has rendered her condition intolerable and her life burthensome. Your Petitioner has for a long time patiently sustained this abuse, and hoping for a reform, has endeavoured to conceal it from the world, but is now obliged, reluctantly, to pray your Honorable Court to interfere in her behalf, to preserve her and her children from poverty and destruction, and grant her a Divorce from the bed and board of her said husband Kennedy M^cFarland.”  FHL film #1023004, images 474-478 (476).

MCGEE, Elizabeth v. Charles.  Petition of Elizabeth McGee, “late Elizabeth WILLIAMS [next five words careted] by her next friend John Mansell of the County of Philadelphia,” dated and sworn to 31 Jan. 1804, and filed 2 Feb. 1804 at #64 March Term 1804; married “in or about the month of May in the Year of our Lord Eighteen hundred”; cohabited “for sometime after the said marriage”; grounds: “the said Charles in violation of his marriage vow hath given himself up to adulterous practices, and been guilty of adultery.”  Testimony sworn to and filed 11 Sept. 1804: William Wallace, “of the district of Southwark, Physician.”  Divorced 12 Sept. 1804.  FHL film #1023004, images 479-491 (490).

MCINTIRE, James v. Sarah.  Petition of James McIntire, “of the City of Philadelphia, … being a Citizen of this State and having resided herein for several years previous to filing this Petition,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 18 Feb. 1803 and filed that day, and again sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 4 Nov. 1803 and filed that day at #53 Dec. Term 1803 (with affidavit of William Buchanan sworn to at Bedford County 21 Nov. 1803 “That he could not find the within named Sarah M^cIntire nor could get any Information whatever – where she resides”); married “seven years ago and upwards”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Sarah in violation of her marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of Adultery.” Testimony sworn to 6 Jan. 1804: Ann Devlin (signed with her mark), “of the county of Philadelphia, a married woman,” who had lived in the same house occupied by the parties.  Divorced 19 March 1804.  FHL film #1023004, images 492-509 (497).

MCKARAKER/MCKARACKER/MCKERACHER, Rosanna v. Daniel.  Petition of Rosanna McKaraker (signed rosana Mf^cKeracher) for a divorce for bed & board and for alimony, “by her next friend John Cross, of the City of Philadelphia, yeoman,” dated 29 Feb. 1792, sworn to before the Chief Justice at Philadelphia 1 March 1792 and filed that day; married “on or about the twenty third day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Daniel on the eight day of November in the year of our Lord 1791. & on the [next eight words careted] twentieth day of January in the year 1792 and often since in violation of his marriage vow hath turned his wife, your Petitioner, out of doors, and by cruel and barbarous treatment hath endangered her life, & hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable & her life burthensome.” Respondent Daniel McKaraker’s answer filed 8 Sept. 1792: “And the s^d Daniel Comes and Says that the s^d Rosanna was not at the time in the Libel mentioned nor at any other time lawfully joined in marriage with him the s^d Daniel and that he the s^d Daniel is not nor ever was the Husband of her the s^d Rosanna nor is he guilty of the cruel and barbarous treatment in the Libel mentioned & if he the s^d Daniel hath ever offered any Indignities to the Person of her the s^d Rosanna the Same were occasioned by her violent temper and Disposition and by [next word careted] the indecent and provoking Conduct of the s^d Rosanna towards him the s^d Daniel and the s^d Daniel prays that these matters of fact may be enquired of and tried by a Jury of the Country.”  Respondent’s answer filed 12 Sept. 1792: “And the s^d Daniel comes and says that he is not guilty of the cruel and barbarous treatment in the Libel mentioned and that if he the said Daniel hath offered any Indignities to the person of the said Rosanna the same were occasioned by her violent Temper and Disposition and by her indecent Language and provoking Conduct towards him, all which he the said Daniel prays may be enquired of and tried by a Jury of the Country.” Testimony taken at the City of Philadelphia 11 Sept. 1792: William Snyder, “of the Age of Twenty Two Years and upwards of the City of Philadelphia Blacksmith,” states “That he has known the Libellant and Defendant about Six Years, that he served his Time with a Captain Henderson next Door to them and that he lived in the same House with them Three Months in the last Winter …“; Jedediah Snowden, “of the Age of Sixty Seven Years and upwards of the City of Philadelphia Gentleman,” states “That he doth not know the Libellant, but hath known the Defendant several Years by Sight without having any Acquaintance with him …; John Morrill, “of the Age of Twenty five of [the (cut-off)] City of Philadelphia Black-smith,”; Gunning Bedford Esquire, “One of the Aldermen of the City of Philadelphia, aged Sixty Nine Years and upwards.”  Divorced 13 June 1793.  Petition for alimony of Rosana McKarahar (signed Rosana M^cKenacher) filed 1 Sept. 1800: “That in the term of September 1792 by the order of this Honorable Court Your Petitioner was duly divorced a mensa & thoro of her husband Daniel M^cKarahar & an order [next word careted] for Alimony was made, but as to the amount thereof this Court took the same under advisement; that your Petitioner did not then make application to this Honble Court for their final judgment as to the quantity of Alimony, because her said husband had made representation that at that time he was possessed of no property. That during this long interval your Petitioner has been forced to support herself and her children without any aid of her husband; but that of late she has found her own exertions inadequate to procure the said support; and the said Daniel has become possessed of property to a considerable amount in the County of Philadelphia.”  FHL film #1023003, images 510-533 (516).

MCKINZIE, Isabella v. Kenneth.  Petition of Isabella McKinzie (signed with her mark), by her next friend Daniel Able, filed 6 Oct. 1787; married “on the 24 Day of August in the Year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty Six”; cohabited “until lately”; grounds: “that the said Kenneth M^cKinzie since the Month of May in the Year of our Lord 1787. hath totally alienated his Affections from your Libellant and Given himself up to lewd and vicious Company and by cruel and barbarous Treatment hath endangered the Life of your Libellant and by a continued Series of Intemperance and Intoxication squandered away and destroyed the Property which they had acquired for their mutual Subsistance.”   Petition marked “Sep[t].[17]95 n.b.f.  pa[ge].33.”  FHL film #1023004, images 534-536 (534).

MAFFET, David v. Mary Gisbertha.  Petition of David Maffet, “of the City of Philadelphia Mariner,” sworn to and filed 13 Nov. 1804 at #112 Dec. Term 1804 (defendant served personally 27 Nov. 1804); married “on the first day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and ninety … Mary Gisbertha his now wife then Mary Gisbertha (—) SPORON, Widow of Isaac Antonio Sporon of the Island of Curracoa [sic; Curacao]”; cohabited “from that time until the month of June one thousand Eight hundred and two”; grounds: “the said Mary Gisbertha in violation of her said vows hath for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices and hath committed Adultery with Several different men and particularly with a certain William Humphreys.”  Respondent’s answer (signed M. G. Maffet), sworn to at Philadelphia 3 Dec. 1804 and filed 5 Dec. 1804: “That true it is that the said David on the first — day of August — in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety one was lawfully joined in marriage with the said respondent [sic], from which time she this respondent from all manner of adultery and incontinence has lived exempt innocent and free; and this respondent doth expressly deny the charge of adultery made; denies adultery made against her in the said Libel charged to have been committed with William Humpreys. [¶] And the said Mary further answering saith that altho by the Laws of God as well as by their mutual vows plighted they are bound to that chastity which ought to be inseperable from the marriage state; yet the said David in violation of his marriage vows, did commit adultery with divers persons and particularly with a certain Genora.   And the said respondent further answering saith the said David has not resided one whole year last before the filing of the said Libel in the State of Pennsyl^a.”  Petitioner’s replication filed 15 Dec. 1804.  FHL film #1023004, images 239-251 (245).

MAHON, Ann v. Charles.  Petition of Ann Mahon (signed with her mark), by her next friend Robert Hanlon, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice at Philadelphia 10 Feb. 1794 and filed that day at #56 April Term 1794 (defendant served by publication and proclamation); married “at Donegal in the Kingdom of Ireland” on or about 25 April 1780; cohabited “from that time untill the Month of November one thousand seven hundred and eighty two”; grounds: “that the said Charles from the said Month of November (from which time he and your Libellant have lived seperate and apart from bed and board) and having before totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and given himself up to lewd practices, and to the having of adulterous conversations and intercourses with lewd women; and more particularly that the said Charles for the space of nine years last past hath lived at Norfolk in Virginia in open and avowed adultery with a certain Elizabeth Stone and yet doth continue to commit adultery with her the said Elizabeth aforesaid from all which it is evident that the said Charles hath been guilty of Adultery.”  Petition marked “Jan^y[17]96 n.b.f. pa[ge]. 253.”  FHL film #1023004, images 252-261 (254).

MARTIN, Elizabeth v. Mibsom (“Mibson” on subpoena and testimony).  Petition of Elizabeth Martin (signed Eliza Martin), “the wife of Mibsom Martin, late of the City of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend James Whitehead, dated at Philadelphia 6 Sept. 1805, sworn to before an alderman of the City of Philadelphia that day, and filed 9 Sept. 1805 at #2 Dec. Term 1805 (defendant served 31 Oct. 1805); married 16 Jan. 1800; cohabited “from that time forward”; grounds: that the said Mibsom on the first day of March one thousand eight hundred and four, at the City of Philadelphia in the County of Philadelphia, and from thence hitherto, hath willfully and maliciously, and without any cause whatever, abandoned his wife, (your petitioner) and his family and hath wholly neglected & refused to make any provision for his said wife and family or in any manner to contribute towards their maintenance or support [¶] And that the said Mibsom for all the time aforesaid hath given himself up to habits of intoxication whereby he is rendered wholly incapable of managing his affairs and taking care of his family as he ought to do, and that in those fits of intoxication and at other times to wit on the said first of March one thousand eight hundred and four and often afterwards at the said City & County of Philadelphia, the said Mibsom threatened your petitioner & libellant to do her personal harm and by the said threats and other cruel & barbarous treatments by foul indecent & abusive language and by other indignities to her person, the said Mibsom hath caused your petitioner & libellant to fear that her life is endangered, & hath rendered her condition intolerable and her life burthensome.”  Testimony taken and sworn to 27 Dec. 1805: Elizabeth Martin, “of the city of Philadelphia Spinster,” states “I am the Sister of Mibson Martin, the respondent, and have known Elizabeth Martin the Libellant near twenty years. I was not present when they were married, but they lived together as man and wife from some time about the end of the year seventeen hundred and ninety nine … I have lived in the same house with them both, ever since they were married … The said Parties have three children …”; James Whitehead, “of the city of Philadelphia merchant”; Benjamin Horner Junior, “of the city of Philadelphia merchant.”  Divorced from bed & board 28 Dec. 1805.  FHL film #1023004, images 262-275 (270).

MARTIN, John v. Catherine.  Petition of John Martin sworn to and filed 3 Sept. 1792 (affidavit of Daniel Lovering states that a copy of the subpoena was left on 11 March 1793 “at the Place of her the s^d Catherine’s usual & last abode being the House in which she last dwelt in this State as he verily believes, from knowing that She lately dwelt therein & as he hath understood absconded from thence & left this State in June last, the s^d House being situate in Gwinnet Township Montgomery County”); married “in this State to “Catherine, then called Catherine HEIST, on the second Day of April in the year of our Lord, One thousand, seven hundred & seventy eight, By the Reverend M^r Jacob Van Buskirk”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the said Catherine, hath in repeated Instances been guilty of Infidelity, hath violated her Marriage Vow, hath committed Adultery [next three words careted] in this State & is now in a State of Elopement with an Adulterer.”  Testimony taken in the City of Philadelphia 9 April 1794: Mary Hetley (signed with her mark), “wife of John Hetley of the Northern Liberties Cordwainer, a witness of the age of nineteen years & upwards,” states inter alia that the parties “lived in her neighbourhood, when she resided in Gwenit Township in the County of Montgomery.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 10 April 1794: John Dixon (signed John Dickson), “of the City of Philadelphia Weaver, a witness of the age of thirty two years and upwards.”  Divorced 7 Jan. 1794.  FHL film #1023004, images 276-300 (285).

MARTIN, Margaret v. Henry.  Petition of Margaret Martin for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony [second page missing], by her next friend James Bruce, filed 25 Aug. 1796 at #720 Sept. Term 1796; married “on or about the [blank] day of [blank] in the Year of our Lord one thousand sixty Six”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Henry on the Twenty fifth day of March in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety Six and at divers other days and Times since the said Twenty fifth day of March in the Year aforesaid in violation of his marriage vow hath maliciously abandoned his family and hath turned his Wife your petitioner out of doors and by Cruel & barbarous treatment hath endangered her life and hath offered such Indignities to [rest missing].”  Answer dated 14 Sept. 1796: “Henry Martin the above Defendant in his proper [next word careted] Person comes and denies each and every of the charges stated against by the libellant in her libel against him and Prays the honorable Court that a Jury of the Country may be called to try the truth of the Same According to the Act of Assembly in such Case made & provided.”  Petition marked “Jan^y 1800 n.b.f.”  FHL film #1023004, images 301-306 (303).

MARTIN, Matthew v. Elizabeth.  Petition of Matthew Martin (signed Matt: Martin), “of Hamilton Bann Township of County of York Farmer,” sworn to before the Chief Justice 23 June 1791; married “in the month of april one thousand Seven hundred & eighty three … to a certain Elizabeth MATTHIAS”; cohabited “till the month of August one thousand Seven hundred and eighty five”; grounds: “when the said Elizabeth eloped from and deserted your Libellants house & company and has never since returned to it [¶] That the said Elizabeth having formed a Criminal connection with a certain Neil O’Donnel, She has been frequently guilty of the Crime of Adultery with him, and on the tenth day of August one thousand seven hundred & ninety the said Elizabeth Neal O’Donnel were Joined in Marriage by Daniel Griffiths Esquire a Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Chester, and in the month of October last the said Elizabeth was delivered of a Child which was begot by the said Neal O’Donnel, and of which both the said Elizabeth & Neal acknowledged the said Neal to be the Father.”  Petition marked “1792 Discont^d pa[ge]. 365.”  FHL film #1023004, images 307-309 (307); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), p. 80.

MAY, William v. Sarah.  Petition of William May, “House Carpenter,” and “a Native of England,” stating “That on the 27^th day of Oct^r This Libellant with his said Wife arrived in [next two words careted] State of Pensylvania [sic] when he became a Citizen of said state and has resided in said state ever since to the present time,” sworn to in open Court 18 Sept. 1803 and filed that day at #4 Dec. Term 1802; married “11 years [next two words careted] previous to the 20th day of March last past”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That on the 31^st day of August 1802 his said Wife committed Adultery with a certain Richard Irwin Comb Maker in the City of Philadelphia.”  Testimony sworn to 20 Dec. 1802 and filed 23 Dec. 1802: James Shepherd, “of the city of Philadelphia Farmer,” who “has known William and Sarah May for about two or three years past … that he did live in the same house with William and Sarah May as a boarder and lodger from the beginning of May in the present year till some time in September last,” etc.  Divorced 23 Dec. 1802.  FHL film #1023004, images 310-322 (317).

MAYER – see MEYER

MAYER, Rudolph v. Barbara.  Petition of Rudolph Mayer, “of Somerset County,” affirmed in Somerset County before a Supreme Court Justice 13 Oct. 1801 and filed 6 Nov. 1801 at #115 Sept. Term 1801 (defendant served personally by “Abraham Mayer of the County of Dauphin, Farmer,” as affirmed in open Court 15 March 1802); married “some time in the month of May of in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy six”; cohabited “from that time hath lived and cohabited with her, (for fourteen years next following)”; grounds: “the said Barbara, in violation of her marriage vow, hath for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery.”  Testimony taken 23 Dec. 1801: Jacob Mayer, of Dauphin Co., farmer, states that the parties were married by Frederick Kauffman (since deceased) in the Menonist Meetinghouse in Lebanon Twp., then in Lebanon Co., and that the adultery was with Benjamin Young of Heidelberg Twp., Lancaster Co., now in Dauphin Co., by whom she had a child; Henry Mayer, of Lebanon Twp., farmer; John Shenk, of Heidelberg Twp., miller.  Testimony taken 24 Dec. 1801: George Hoke, of Warwick Twp., York Co., farmer, states that Barbara told him that her daughter, who is aged 11 or 12, was by Benjamin Young, and that Barbara has lived in his neighborhood about three years with Frederick Fuhrman; Henry Sheffer, Esq., of Heidelberg Twp., Dauphin Co.  Divorced 15 March 1802.  FHL film #1032004, images 323-339 (327); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), pp. 85-87; also Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 14-15.

MAZURIE, James J. v. Sophia Victoire Marie Louise.  Petition of James J Mazurie dated at Philadelphia 29 Dec. 1804 and sworn to before the Mayor and filed that day at #281 Dec. Term 1804 (with affidavit of attempted service of the subpoena); married 21 May 1801; cohabited “from that time until sometime in the month of March in the year eighteen hundred & four”; grounds: ”that the said Sophie Victoire Louise Marie Louise some time in the said month of March in the year eighteen hundred & four aforesaid at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania aforesaid entered into a second marriage knowingly with a certain [blank] Gauffier in violation of the previous vow she made to her former husband whose marriage is still subsisting.”  FHL film #1023004, images 357-365 (357).

MEYER/MOYER, Abraham v. Mary.  Petition of Abraham Moyer (signed in German script Abraham Meyer), dated at Philadelphia 10 Nov. 1796, and affirmed there 11 Nov. 1796 and filed that day (defendant served personally by a Deputy Sheriff of Northampton County on 27 Feb. 1797); married “several years since … in the County of Northampton … to a certain Mary DONAT”; cohabited “for upwards of Six Months”; grounds: “that the same Mary in about Six Months after the Intermarriage aforesaid, absconded and seperated herself from the Bed and Board of Your Libellant, and having Totally alienated her affections from your Libellant given herself up to Lewd practices and to the having Adulterous Conversation and Intercourse with Lewd Men, and more particularly that she the said Mary for the Space of Six Months since the Intermarriage with the Libellant lived in the County of Northampton and State afores^d in Open and avowed Adultery with a certain Henry Schliffer of the same County and yet doth continue to Commit adultery – from all which it is Evident that the said Mattie Mary hath been Guilty of Adultery.”  Mary pleads not guilty 10 Nov. 1797.  Testimony taken 15 Aug. 1797: Magdalena Graber (signed with her mark) states inter alia “that She is the Sister of the Libellant, and has known the Respondent since a Year or two before her marriage with the Libellant”; Jacob Miller states inter alia “That the Deponent was one of Henry Schleiffer’s nearest neighbours at the Time the said Mary left her Husband, and knows that after her Desertion of her Husband She made her home at the House of the said Schleiffer”; Henry Moyer (signed Henry Myer) states inter alia “That he hath known the parties about Ten years and is not related to either”; Anna Moyer (signed with her mark) states inter alia That She is the Mother of the Libellant.”  Divorced 10 Dec. 1798.  FHL film #1023004, images 692-716 (696).

MEYER (MAYER on petition, subpoena, and interrogatories), Cornelius v. Catharine.  Petition of Cornelius Mayer (signed in German script Corneliüs Meyer), “of Manheim Township in the County of Lancaster Yeoman,” affirmed before a Supreme Court Justice 3 March 1794 and filed 17 March 1794; married “on the first of November in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Ninety one … to a certain Catharine KENDRICK of the Township of Conostogoe in the County of Lancaster”; grounds: “That the said Catharine hath behaved in a very gross and improper manner, and hath frequently eloped from your Petitioner [¶] That your Petitioner and the said Catharine have been seperated from each other since the Month of May last; during which time the said Catharine hath behaved herself in the most lewd and improper manner, and hath committed Adultery, and still continues to live in the same unlawful way.”  Testimony taken 13 April 1795 (affirmed): Michael App states that parties were married at his house by Rev. Henry Muhlenberg;  William Paine and Susannah Paine (both signing with their mark) state inter alia that Catharine had remarried Samuel Sites and had one child by him and was now pregnant with another.  Divorced 7 Sept. 1795.  FHL film #1032004, images 340-356 (354); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), p. 6; see also Donna R. Irish, comp., Pennsylvania German Marriages (Baltimore, 1982), p. 226 (Cornelius Mayer and Catharine KUNDIG, First Reformed Ch., Lancaster).

MILES, Rachel v. James.  Petition of Rachel Miles, by her next friend William Griffith, sworn to 31 March 1803 and filed 9 April 1803; married “about fifteen years ago … by whom she has now living four children”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that about nine years since her said husband, without any reasonable cause willfully and maliciously deserted your Libellant and absented himself from your Libellant and his family, and has never since returned to them or in any manner provided for them during the whole of the said nine years.”  FHL film #1023004, images 537-539 (537).

MILLER, Hannah v. James.  Petition of Hanna Miller, “feme covert of Northumberland County and State of Pennsylvania,” by her next friend Isaac Richardson, dated 28 Nov. 1792, sworn to at Northumberland County before a Justice of the Peace that day and filed 3 Dec. 1792 (defendant served personally at Northumberland County 27 [sic] Dec. 1792); [marriage date and place, and period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “whereas at the last Court of Nici prius held at Wilkesbarre for the County of Luzerne in this Commonwealth the said James Miller husband of this petitioner was convicted of Adultery with a certain Mary Culbertson, as by the Records of the Said Court of Nisi prius will fully appear.”  James’ answer: “And now the said James Miller on the seventeenth day of January in the Year one thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety three in Philadelphia at a Supreme Court then and there held for the State of Pennsylvania aforesaid, for answer to the Petition for a divorce exhibited unto this Court by Harriet Miller, saith, that the facts contained in the said Petition are true, as they stand stated, and that he cannot gainsay the same.”  Divorced 7 Jan. 1793.  FHL film #1023004, images 540-549 (544).

MILLER, Henry v. Catharine.  Petition of Henry Miller, who “was born in the said County of Berks, was educated and hath lived for some time, in the County of Lancaster, but now resides in Heidleberg Township in the County of Berks aforesaid,” sworn to at Berks County before a Justice of the Peace 2 Feb. 1801 and filed 19 March 1801 at #6 Sept. Term 1801; married “on the 11^th day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and ninety [next word careted] to one Catharine ALBRECHT, with whom your Petitioner hath since lived”; grounds: “said Catharine, not regarding her matrimonial vow, but hath committed Adultery with several [unnamed] persons, as your Petitioner is ready to prove.”  FHL film #1023004, images 550-558 (557).

MILLER, Susannah v. Samuel.  Petition of Susannah Miller (signed with her mark), by her next friend Abraham Wolf, sworn to at Dauphin County before the President of the Court of Common Pleas 13 March 1800 and filed 19 March 1800 at #4 Sept. Term 1800 (subpoena “Served (20^th)”); married “on or about the first Day of December 1798”; cohabited “for the space of five months”; grounds: “that during all that Time he never had Connection with her – nor carnally did know her, & that your petitioner is firm persuaded that the said Samuel is naturally impotent & incapable of Procreating & that the said Samuel did confess & acknowledge the same to your petitioner.”  FHL film #1023004, images 559-565 (563).

MISCINNIUS, Jane v. David.  Petition of Jane Miscinnius (signed with her mark), by her next friend William Sawyer, sworn to at Dauphin County before an Associate Judge of the Court of Common Pleas on 3 Dec. 1801 and filed 15 Dec. 1801 at #369 Dec. Term 1801 (defendant served by proclamation and publication); married “on [next two words careted] or about the 18^th Day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty five”; cohabited “from that time until about the first of January Anno Domini one thousand seven hundred ninety five”; grounds: “that the said David from the first Day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety five – hath wickedly & maliciously Treated her the said Jane in a cruel and barbarous manner so as oftentimes to endanger her live and hath frequently turned her out of Doors and offered such indignities to her Person as rendered her Condition intollerable and life burthensome, wherefrom she your Petitioner was obliged to withdraw from his House; all which said Practices are persisted in & continued by him the said David without any reasonable or Just Cause whatever.”  Testimony taken 23 June 1833: Jane Martin; Peter Hahn; David Ferguson, of West Hanover Twp., Dauphin Co.; Martha Rippeth, of West Hanover Twp.; Robert Freekleton, of West Hanover Twp.; John Finney, of West Hanover Twp.  Testimony taken 30 July 1803: William Logan states inter alia that he was present at the marriage of David to Jane, widow of William Sayers, late of Londonderry Twp., Dauphin Co., at her house.  Divorced from bed & board 12 Sept. 1803; “17 Sept^t 1803 the within decree set aside and leave Granted to Amend Libel–[?].”  FHL film #1023004, images 566-592 (590); abstracted (as MISKIMMINS) at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), pp. 8-11.

MITCHELL, Maria Elizabeth v. James.  Petition of Mary Elizabeth Mitchell (signed Maria E Mitchell), “of the [next word careted] cityCounty of Philadelphia wife of James Mitchell late of the same [next word careted] cityCounty,” by her next friend Lewis Garanger, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 23 Nov. 1799 and filed the same day (copy of subpoena left “at a house in South water Street just below Spencer Street Said to be his usual & last place of abode in the County of Philad^a”); married “about five years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “her said husband hath for more than four years past wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself without any reasonable cause from your Petitioner and Libellant.”  FHL film #1023004, images 593-598 (596).

MITCHELL, Mary v. John.  Petition of Mary Mitchell, by her next friend Thomas Bradford, dated at Philadelphia 30 July 1803, sworn to 1 Aug. 1803, and filed 3 Aug. 1803 at #286 Sept. Term 1803 (defendant served by proclamation and publication in Philadelphia); married “on the thirty first day of December [next three words careted] in or about on the year one thousand and seven hundred and sixty seven”; cohabited “from that time until the eighth – – day of December in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty three”; grounds: “that the said John Mitchell from the – eighth – day of December – in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty three – hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Mary; and such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four years and more without any just or reasonable cause and yet doth continue to absent himself from her the said Mary.”  Testimony sworn to 20 Dec. 1803: Mary Bradford, “of the city of Philadephia,” states inter alia “that she known both the Parties to this suit for thirty six or thirty seven years past,” and “that the defendant has absented himself from and deserted the Libellant for at least fifteen years past, without any cause to the deponents knowledge, and that he is still absent from her; that the deponent has been and is very intimate with her; and that during the time aforesaid the Libellant has not, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the deponent, received any support or maintenance from the defendant, but supported herself from her own property which the deponent believes was settled in Court for her”; Catharine Cary (signed Cath Cary), “of the city of Philadelphia, Widow,” states inter alia that she has known Mary Mitchell since she was a child and has known John Mitchell between thirty and forty years.””  Divorced 24 Dec. 1803.  FHL film #1023004, images 599-610 (603).

MONROE/MUNROE, Margaret v. Henry.  Petition of Margaret Munroe (signed Margret Monro) for divorce for bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend James Kerr, sworn to at Philadelphia before a Supreme Court Justice 30 Dec. 1796 and filed on or before 2 Jan. 1797 (when a subpoena was issued to Henry) at #3 March Term 1797; married “on the Fourteenth day of May in the year of our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety five”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Henry wholy regardless of his affection towards your Libellant has turned her out of Doors and by his cruel and barbarous treatment has endangered her life and offered such indignities to her Person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burthensome.”  Answer (signed by counsel), filed 3 Dec. 1800: “The answer of Henry Monroe the Defendant to the Bill of complaint of Margaret Monroe complainant [¶] … That he utterly and absolutely denies that the Complainant has behaved and conducted herself towards the Defendant as become an affectionate and loving Wife, as is averred in her said Bill of Complaint; but that by constant and habitual drunkenness, by a course of ruinous extravagance, by frequently contracting large and unnecessary debts without the knowledge or privity and against the consent of the Defendant, by a total neglect or incapacity in the superintendence of his family and domestic concerns, and by divers other grievous and intolerable misbehaviours, vices and faults the said complainant has rendered the life of this Defendant uncomfortable and unhappy and greatly impaired his estates and further this Defendant utterly denies to be true the several averments and charges of the complainaint against him of cruel and barbarous treatment of her, of offering indignities to her person, or, in any way on his part or by his means rendering her condition intolerable or her life burthensome; that the said averments and charges are altogether false & malicious.”  Margaret’s replication, denying the answer’s allegations, filed 3 Dec. 1800.  Petition marked “Jan^y 1800 n. b. f.”  FHL film #1023004, images 611-627 (611).

MONTGOMERY, Robert v. Marianne.  Petition of Robert Montgomery “of the City of Philadelphia, Gentleman, a Citizen of Pennsylvania therein for many years residing,” dated at Philadelphia 5 Nov. 1801, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice that day, and filed that day at #111 Dec. Term 1801 (served by proclamation and proclamation); married “about thirteen years ago … to Marianne, his present wife, theretofore named Marianne PIGOTT”; cohabited “until some time in the last Spring when differences having arisen between them in consequence of her expensive and dissipated conduct and mode of life, they separated by mutual consent, & She immediately or shortly afterwards departed for Europe”; grounds: “That since their said Separation and her said departure, Your Petitioner has been credibly informed & verily believes and now doth propound and alledge [sic] to This Honorable Court, That the said Marianne in violation of her Marriage vow, hath during their said intermarriage, and previous to their said Separation, committed Adultery with divers persons and among others with a man by the name of Du Dresnay, or some similar name [‘Du Drencey’ on interrogatories], to the great injury of your Petitioner.”  Testimony sworn to 9 Jan. 1802 : Betsy Simpson (signed with her mark), “a Black woman,” states inter alia that she lived about seven years with them, having been purchased by the said Robert in the State of Delaware, and indented to him for seven years, that the said Robert and Marianne lived during the Summer a Wilmington, and in the winter at Philadelphia, And this deponent left their service in May last, and her indenture was delivered up to her.”  Testimony sworn to 29 Jan. 1802: Joseph Spragg, who states inter alia that he is about the age of sixteen years and lived in the family of the Parties to this cause about two years and an half, and left their service some time in the last summer.” Testimony sworn to 5 Feb. 1802: John Gallagher (signed with his mark), states inter alia that “he lived a twelvemonth with Robert and Marianne Montgomery, and served them as a coachman, in Wilmington and in Philadelphia; and that he left their service in the spring or beginning of the summer in the last year … that he did not stay at night at the Montgomery’s but slept at his own house.”  Divorced 1 March 1802.  FHL film #1023004, images 668-686 (672).

MOORE, Maria R. v. John.  Petition of Maria R. Moore, “of the County of Philadelphia, wife of John Moore of the same place,” by her next friend Mary Otway, sworn to at Philadelphia before the Chief Justice 6 Aug. 1798 and filed 7 Aug. 1798 at #428 Sept. Term 1798 (served by publication and proclamation); married “in month of May in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred ninety five”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said John unmindful of his marriage vow and in violation of the duties thereby enjoined hath at divers times since the celebration of the said marriage committed adultery with several lewd women, whose names are at present unknown to your Libellant, but which when discovered she prays may be added to, and made a part of this Bill.”  Divorced 10 Dec. 1799.  FHL film #1023004, images 628-635 (632) and 639-648.

MOORE, Mary v. James.  “Petition of Mary Moore by her next friend John Cross of the District of Southworth in the County of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, dated, sworn to in open court, and filed 11 Dec. 1798 at #2 March Term 1799; married “on or about the thirteenth day of October in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty five”; cohabited “for a considerable length of time”; grounds: “the said James Moore on the sixth day of December in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety five and at divers other days and times since and before the said sixth day of December in the Year last aforesaid in violation of his Marriage vow hath by cruel and barbarous treatment and by threatening to shoot her, endangered her life and hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burthensome and in consequence of such cruel and barbarous treatment your Petitioner hath been under the disagreeable necessity of withdrawing from her said Husband.”  Retraction signed by defense counsel 25 March 1800 and filed that day: “I retract the plea pleaded in this case, and consent that Ptf proceed as if no appearance had been entered by me & that my name be erased, from the docket.  Testimony taken 27 March 1799: John Cross states inter alia “that he has known both the Parties to this suit upwards of seven years; during the whole of which time they have lived together as man and wife … that he has not ever seen the defendant insult or beat the libellant tho he has heard him scold her … that the defendant follows no trade or calling as he believes; having been confined in the goal at Philadelphia for near a year past: that the libellant supports herself by her own labour, and has not received any assistance, as this deponent verily believes, from her husband, for more than three years past: And that the said James Moore is not possessed of any property so far as this deponent knows; nor is the libellant possessed of any as he believes”; William McFetridge states inter alia “that he has known the libellant & defendant since the year 1790 … that both Parties staid at this deponents house in the country for about a month when they were coming from Strasburgh to Philadelphia in the year 1790, and that this deponent lodged in the same house with them in Philadelphia in the year 1794, and has been well acquainted with them since that time … About a year afterwards he came upon business to the defendant’s house … The Parties shortly afterwards left Philadelphia, and lived together in the country, where the defendant sold all his property and froliched it away as he afterwards told this deponent: The libellant came to Philadelphia alone, and has not since lived with him except for about two weeks in the year 1797; which she did at the request of some friends, and his promise to use her well … that the defendant is confined in the goal of Philadelpha”; John McFedridge (signed with his mark) states inter alia that the libellant has lived in this deponent’s house for three years past, and has supported herself by her own labour”; Edward Devers (signed Edward Dever) states inter alia “that he knows both the Parties, having worked in the defendants house and for him in the business of a taylor for several months about four years ago, but has not known much of them since that time.”  FHL film #1023004, images 636-638 (636) and 649-667.

MORRIS, Anne Maria v. Robert.  Petition of Anna Maria Morris, “of the County of Philadelphia,” by her next friend Samuel Shoemaker, affirmed before a Philadelphia justice of the peace 7 Nov. and filed 8 Nov. 1811 at #81 Dec. Term (subpoena returned as not found); married “on the fifth day of May A.D 1796 in the City of Philadelphia in this State … to Robert Morris then of the same City Gentleman”; cohabited “until the Month of July in the year of our Lord 1806, [grounds:] when the said Robert Morris wilfully & maliciously & without any just or reasonable cause deserted her, & absented himself from her, & such desertion & absence hath persisted in ever since being upwards of four years.”  FHL film #1023004, images 687-691 (689).

MOYER, see MEYER

MULLOWNY, John v. Catharine.  Petition of John Mullowny, “of the City of Philadelphia,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 25 Nov. 1793 and filed that day; married “on the fourteenth day of May — in the year of our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and eighty nine … [to] a certain Catharine QUINLIN”; cohabited “from that time until the tenth day of November [next word careted] August in the year of our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety three”; grounds: “at which time and at divers time since she the said Catharine has been guilty of Adultery and which your Libellant expressly charges to be true.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 3 Sept. 1794: Rachel Latine (signed with her mark), “a servant bound for a term of years to the Libellant, of the age of thirty years and upwards,” states inter alia “that she has known the Libellant and Defendant in the above cause for three years and upwards, having served them as a bound servant during that time, and her Indenture expiring in August next … But this Examinant does not recollect ever seeing the said Catharine Muhoney in bed, or in the act of commit adultery with any particular man. And this Examiner further saith, that the said Catharine Mullowny having invited a certain John Duncan to sit with her on the porch, this Examinant saw such familiarities pass between them as induced her to watch, and that sometime after they had been so seated in the porch, they came together into the passage of the House, which obliged this Examinant and a certain Betsey Todd (another servant in the family, who joined in watching) to quit their station; but that returning suddenly afterwards they surprized the said Catharine Mullowny and the said John Duncan so much that this Examinant saw the said John Duncan run into the street with his breeches down”; Cato Pettit (signed with his mark), “a free Negroe man, formerly a slave to M^r Charles Pettit, of considerable age,” states inter alia “That he has known the Libellant and Defendant for upwards of twelve months, of which term he was between two and three months in the Libellants service … that he was employed as a servant to attend upon Catharine Mullowny on a voyage to S^t Lucea, in the fall of last year; that the said Catharine and this Examinant accordingly embarked on board the Brig Sally, Cap^t Peter Odlin; that during the voyage the said Catharine and Cap^t Odlin were often seen by this Examinant toying and kissing and that he was passing through the Cabin, he saw them in bed together, through the window of the State-room door; that they arrived at Barbadoes shortly after he had seen them in bed together, and that they took lodgings in the same house while they remained in that Island; that this Examinant was then acting as Cabin-boy, instead of a person who had been displaced, and, therefore, did not –[?] on there; that the Brig afterwards touched at S^t Eustatia and S^t Lucea, but the said Catharine did not go ashore at the last mentioned Islands; And the Examinant further saith, that the said Catharine had attached herself to strong drink; that he had frequently seen her in a state of intoxication; and that twice during the voyage, he was obliged to put her to bed.”  Divorced 1 Sept. 1794.  FHL film #1023004, images 717-735 (725).

MUNN, John v. Anne.  Petition of John Munn, “of the County of Washington in said State Yeoman,” dated 30 March 1804, sworn to that day at Washington Co. before a justice of the peace, and filed 13 April 1804 at #39 Sept. Term 1804; married “on the Twenty second day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty five”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Anne in violation of her marriage vows hath, for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken 20 March 1805 at the town of Washington [portions apparently missing]: David Munn states (in answer to interrogatories) “1.  Yes, I know them — [¶] 2.  I have known both parties ever since the year 1782 and know that they were joined n lawful Wedlock — [¶] 3.  I was present at their marriage, they were married in September 1784 by Revd. [blank] McKee a Presbyterian Clergyman in the presence of James Munn, William Byers, Joseph McCane Obediah Wilson and others at the House of Asa COOK her father in Westmoreland County Pennsylvania”; Thomas Ray states inter alia “I do know the parties and have been acquainted with them four years last past”; John McKim (signed with his mark) states inter alia “That in February 1804 I was at work at John Munns (the Libellant). I came into the House to warm my feet; John Munn at that time was talking to his wife Anne Munn (the Respondent) about reports in the Neighbourhood of her bad conduct with James Ray, and reproving her for it; He said to her, that if she told the truth, or acknowledged the whole, it might be better for her: She then told him, (her husband,) that she (Anne Munn) had had connexion with him, (I supposed James Ray, but she did not mention his name,) three times, and one of those times was on a Sunday”; Aaron Williams states “I say, That to the best of my knowledge John Munn (the Libellant) was a kind, tender and affectionate husband to his wife Anne Munn (the Respondent) during the whole time of their cohabitation together, and that he (John Munn) provided a good living for her (Anne Munn)”; Sally Ray (signed with her mark)states inter alia “I do know the parties John Munn and Anne Munn, and have known them for three or four years last past … That about Christmas in the year 1803, being the time mentioned by Thomas Ray in his Testimony, there were in my House James Ray, Anne Munn [parenthetical careted:] (the Respondent) Peggy Munn and Samuel Munn two of the Children of Anne Munn, Martha Shaw and Thomas Ray … About midnight the Children of Anne Munn before mentioned, wished to go home, and requested their mother to go with them, but she refused, as the ground as she said, was somewhat slippery with sleet, that had fallen that night – James Ray accompanied the Children home and in a short time afterwards returned to my house – A Bed was made on the floor, and shortly after his return, James Ray laid himself in that bed; After he had laid down, Anne Munn went and sat near the bed wherein he was lying – Martha Shaw came up to Anne Munn and catched hold of her, and told her to go to bed to James Ray – Anne Munn replied to her, what would John (meaning her Husband) say, if I would go to Bed to him (the said James Ray) – At that time James Ray raised himself in the bed and seized Anne Munn by her Petticoats, and drew her Ann Munn [parenthetical careted] onto Bed to him (the said James Ray) where she remained until next morning … Anne Munn at some time acknowledged to me, that she had been guilty of whoredom, with two other persons, who had resided in the Neighbourhood, and with one of these persons not along time before, and that James Ray was the fourteenth man, that had has carnal dealings with her (the said Anne Munn)” ; Martha Shaw states inter alia “That I do know the parties John Munn and Anne his wife and have known them for seventeen or eighteen years last past … I was in Company with John Munn, Anne Munn, James Ray and two of the Sons of the Libellant, returning home after night from night from the general Muster in the fall of the year 1803 – Anne Munn was intoxicated with Liquor, I put her the said Anne Munn behind James Ray on the Horse that he was riding”; Martha McCartney states inter alia “That I have lived at the House of John Moore (the Libellant) since the fall of the year 1803, during that fall I observed a great intimacy between Anne Munn (the Respondent) and James Ray.”  Divorced 14 Sept. 1805 “Washington.”  FHL film #1023004, images 736-761 (736).

MUNROE, see MONROE

MURPHY, Anne v. Timothy.  Petition [only] of Anne Murphy (signed with her mark) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Thomas Mulonoy, sworn to 17 April 1786 and filed that day; married “by the Advice and constraint of her family … about 7 or 8 years ago she being then a minor considerably under the age of maturity”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That notwithstanding your Libellant in every respect conformed to the duties of a good wife, she was soon after her said marriage exposed to the severest want and the most public scandal on account of the indolent conduct, and bad character of her said Husband. – That finding her averse to the evil courses which he pursued, your libellant’s said Husband did, without cause of provocation by her given, so beat and otherwise ill-treat your Libellant, that for comfort and safety of her life, she was obliged to seperate from her said Husband, and during several years thereafter to provide for herself. That the said Husband of your Libellant embarked on board the Holker during the late War, and was together with the rest of the crew belonging to that Ship, reputed, and long supposed to have perished therein: but he, having upon a raft escaped the fate of the said Ship and Crew, returned to this City and promising to conduct himself for the future with honesty and affection, your Libellant in compassion to his misfortunes, and forgiving his former ill-usage, did consent to cohabit with her said Husband; and during this second stay with him, did dutifully faithfully and Affectionately behave herself. But he the said Husband of your Libellant regardless of the assurances which he had given, did speedily renew his former lewd and wicked connections, and after the most cruel and violent treatment of her person (not only by beating and wounding your Libellant, but likewise by communicating to her certain infamo[u?]s and dangerous disorders) your Libellant was again compelled to fly from his house; and has ever since, without the aid or support of her said Husband, but merely by her own industry and economy, ma[i]ntained and supported herself in this City. That your Libellant’s said Husband has lately threatened violence to your Libellants person; in terror whereof, and of a repetition of those cruelties upon her, your Libellant humbly prays that a Subpoena may issue directed to the said Timothy ….”  Petition marked “July [17]89 n.b.f.  pa[ge] 53.”  FHL film #1023004, images 762-767 (762).

MURRAY, Mary v. Robert C.  Petition of Mary Murray (signed Mary Murry) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, “by her next friend John Hughs of the City of Philadelphia,” dated 25 Aug. 1797 and sworn to that day at Philadelphia and filed 26 Aug. 1797 at #1274[?] Sept. Term 1797; married “on the sixteenth day of February in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Robert C Murray on the thirteenth day of August last last and at divers other days and times since the said thirteenth day of August last in violation of his marriage vow hath maliciously abandoned his family and by cruel and barbarous treatment of your Petitioner endangered her life and offerd [sic] such indignities to her person as to render her condition mise[careted:]Intolerable and her life burthensome whereby she hath been forced to withdraw from his house and family.”  Answer (signed Robert Murray), dated 28 March 1798: admits the marriage date but “the defendant denies all and every other matter and cause or thing with which he is charged in the Libel of the said Mary Murray and particularly he denies having committing adultery with Rose Murray who is the defendants own mother or with any other person or persons since his marriage with the said Mary Murray and also his having beat abused or in any wise ill treated the said Mary Murray or having neglected or refused to provide for her all such necessaries as are suitable to the Situation and circumstances of the defendant.”  Testimony taken in the City of Philadelphia 27 March 1798: Hannah Shanks (signed with her mark), “of the City of Phil^a Nurse,” states “That she was employed to nurse the Libellant during her lying in, sometime in November 1797; that the Defendant did not allow the Libellant necessaries or comfort suited to her situation, in-so-much that this Deponent thought the Libellants life was in danger and intended to leave the place; that most of the articles were kept and sparingly dealt out by an old woman who lived in the House, and whom the Defendant called his mother; that although this Deponent never saw the Defendant strike the Libellant, she has often heard him use her harshly and with great brutality; that fourteen days after the said lying-in, he threatened to kick this Deponent out of the house; and told the Libellant that she (the Libellant) should, likewise, be turned out, unless she found a place for herself. … [and] That she verily believes the Defendant slept with and commited adultery with the old woman above mentioned [with ‘mentioned;’ written above an interlined word]; that they sleep in the same room, where there is only one bed; and that he has often said that he slept with the said old woman.” Alexander McKechen (signed with his mark), “an Apprentice to the Defendant aged fifteen years and upwards,” states “That the Defendant keeps in his House an elderly woman, of[?] with whom this Deponent has often seen the Defendant in bed [next four words careted] the same Bed together and that the said elderly woman passes by the name of Rose Murray”; Elizabeth Hughes (signed with her mark), “of the Northern Liberties, the wife of John Hughes of the Northern Liberties Ship-Carpenter,” states inter alia That she verily believes the said Defendant has not provided his said wife with food clothing & necessaries for herself & children, but on the contrary has suffered them to want. … that the Defendant has lived with and supported an old woman, whom he calls his mother, and that in general his conduct towards the Libellant is reputed to be very cruel.”   Divorced from bed & board 23 March 1798.  FHL film #1023004, images 768-790 (781)

NATHAN, Isaiah v. Lydia.  Petition of Isaiah Nathan, dated at Philadelphia 26 May 1815, sworn to there that day, and filed 27 June 1815 at #103 March Term 1815; married “on or about the Tenth day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand Eight hundred and fifteen at the City of Philadelphia … to a certain Lydia ENIT”; cohabited “from that time until the Eighteenth day of May instant last past”; grounds: “that the said Lydia from the said Eighteenth day of May and before hath totally alienated her affections from your Libellant and given herself up to lewd practices and to adulterous Intercourse and Conversation with different men and particularly at the City of Philadelphia in the County of Philadelphia hath frequently committed Adultery with a certain Jesse Johnson and doth continue to commit adultery with him.”  FHL film #1023005, images 6-11 (6).

NATHANS, Margaretta Lucretia v. Jacob.  Petition of Margaret Lucretia Nathan (signed Margaretta L. Nathans), “wife of Jacob Nathan of the City of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, “by her Grandfather and next friend Peter Ozeas,” sworn to (as Margaretta L. Nathans) before an alderman 29 Dec. 1810 and filed that day at #102 Dec. Term 1810; [marriage place and date and period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the said Jacob has repeatedly offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable, and hath now withdrawn himself from her, and refused to allow her a competent maintenance or support.”  FHL film #1023005, images 12-16 (14).

NAYLOR, Samuel v. Margaret.  Petition of Samuel Naylor, “of the City of Philadelphia,” sworn to at the City of Philadelphia 3 Dec. 1802 and filed 6 Dec. 1802 at #2 March Term 1803; married 13 April 1802; “hath lived and cohabited with her” [period not stated]; grounds: “the said Margaret in violation of her marriage vow hath for a considerable time given herself up to adulterous practices and hath been guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken 14 March 1803: Hannah Kemprey, of Philadelphia Co., aged 25, states that she has known Margaret about three years, and Samuel thirteen months or more, and “lived in the service of said Margaret for nine months, before she was married … and went to live with her again a few days after marriage, and staid with her for six or seven months,” and that on 22 Oct. last James Gillespie came to the house and stayed overnight while “the Libellant had gone on a voyage to Cadiz about five months before this time and returned in about a week after,” and that Margaret had threatened her life and beat for having told others of this.  Testimony taken 14 March 1807: Samuel Baldwin, of the City of Philadelphia, aged 21 and upwards, states that “he has known the Respondent for more than eight years, and the Libellant for about five years, That he lived with the Respondent in the lifetime of her first husband, to whom he was an apprentice, that he continued to live with her afterwards while she was a widow,” and after her marriage with the Libellant for eight or ten months, and that he saw her “sitting on the knee of a Captain Logan in the evening while her husband was at sea, and was frequently sent upstairs to bed along with the servant girl, and one night in the winter of 1803 “the Respondent came up to this Deponent and threw her arms around his neck, and offered her person to his embrace, as the family were then moving into another house, a bed lay accidentally in the room to which they retired, where this Deponent had a criminal intercourse with the Respondent … and he had very often connection with her.”   FHL film #1023005, images 17-32 (30)

NEWBERRY, Thomas v. Ann.  Petition of Thomas Newberry, “of the City of Philadelphia,” dated at Philadelphia 14 June 1800, sworn to in Philadelphia County before a Supreme Court Justice 14 June 1800, and filed that day at #219 Sept. Term. 1800 (defendant served 16 June 1800); married “on or about the twenty second day of March in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine … with Ann his present Wife before that time named Ann CLARKE by John Jennings Esquire one of the Alderman of the said City of Philadelphia”; grounds: “that since their said Marriage the said Ann hath separated herself from your Petitioner and hath repeatedly committed Adultery with a certain Edward Hunt in Violation of her duty and Marriage Vows and the said Ann hath for some time past frequented disorderly Houses for the purposes of Prostitution and the said Ann at this time resides in a house visited by lewd Company.”  FHL film #1023005, images 33-39 (36).

NOUGE, Mary v. Etienne.  Petition of Mary Nouge (signed Mary Neuge[?]), who “has resided in the City of Philadelphia for twelve years last past,” by her next friend George Andrews, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 12 Feb. 1802 and filed that day at #92 March Term 1802 (defendant served by proclamation and publication); married 9 July 1795; cohabited “for some time afterward”; grounds: “that the said Etienne Nouge for some [next word careted] time afterwards Conducted himself like a dutifull and affectionate Husband untill he prevailed on your Libellant to Join with him in Mortgageing [sic] the Two Brick Houses & Lot of Ground she occupied and held in her own Right, Previous to their Marriage Situate on the South West Corner of Spruce and fourth Streets in the City of Philadelphia for the Amount of Seventeen hundred Pounds and upwards, The Whole of which was Received and Expended by the said Etienne Nouge in what way your Libellant does not know after which he Contracted a Number of Debts and to Considerable Amount & when called on and pressed for payment he absconded from his Creditors and about the first day of February in the year one thousand Seven hundred and Ninety eight, deserted your Libellant without any reasonable Cause leaving her to pay his Debts, Several of which She has Since been obliged to pay. The said Etienne Nouge after such Desertion as your Libellant was informed proceeded from Pennsylvania to Charleston South Carolina and from thence to some of the West India Islands.”  Testimony taken 30 Dec. 1802: Hester Hollowell (signed with her mark), states “that she is the sister of the Libellant,” that she seldom went to their house, “[t]hat the Libellant at the time of her marriage to the defendant had a life estate in three houses at the corner of Spruce and Fourth Streets which were mortgaged by the defendant after his marriage, that two of them have since been sold under the mortgages given by him, and have been purchased by this deponent, that this deponent also receives the rent of the third house, which she pays over to D^r Say who has a mortgage upon it given by the defendant,” “that to the best of her recollection the said Parties lived together as man & wife above two years & that they never had any children,” that he deserted her in Jan. 1798 without any just cause while she was sick, “and this deponent attended and took care of her until she came to live with this deponent … perhaps three or four months [there]after … and has ever since lived with her, that this deponent has supported and maintained her during all that time.”  Divorced 1 Jan. 1803.  FHL film #1023005, images 40-53 (51).

NUSAM, Margaret v. Richard.  Petition of Margaret Nusam (signed with her mark), “late Margaret MATTHEWS of Washington County & State of Pennsylvania,” by her next friend Robert Mathews (signed Robert Matthews), sworn to at Washington County 7 Feb. 1797 and filed 18 Feb. 1797 (defendant served in the Washington County Goal 10 April 1797): grounds: “That her husband Richard Nusan, at a Court of Quarter Sessions of the said County, has been convicted of Adultery with a Certain Margaret Mathews; for which Cause, she the said Margaret Nusam comes into Court, by her next friend as aforesaid, and prays to be releived [sic] by a divorce from the bond of Matrimony of her the said Margaret Nusan with him the said Richard Nusam and herewith subjoins a transcript of the Record of the Conviction of the said Richard as aforesaid.”  Transcript from Jan. Sessions 1797 of the Washington Co. Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of the conviction of Richard Nusam, late of Washington Co., yeoman, on 1 Dec. 1796, of adultery with Margarett Matthews, begetting a baseborn child, for which he was sentenced to pay a $30 fine and costs, and to imprisonment for nine months.  Divorced 29 Dec. 1798.  FHL film #1023003, images 54-65 (60).

NYCE, Charlotte D. B. v. Joseph.  Petition of Charlotte D.B. Nyce (signed Charlotta D B Nyce), “at present the wife of Joseph Nyce of the County of Montgomery yeoman,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Jacob Brown, sworn to at Philadelphia 13 Feb. 1800 and filed that day at #125 March Term 1800; married 11 Jan. 1791; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the said Joseph Nyce without any reasonable Cause hath wilfully and maliciously Abandoned his family, As well as having offered his wife such Indignities to her person as to render her condition Intolerable and life burthensome.” By agreement of the parties, case referred to referees to determine the amount of alimony; from their report, filed 12 Aug. 1800 and apparently confirmed 1 Sept. 1800: Joseph, in lieu of alimony, is to relinquish all claims to about 30 acres in Coventry Twp., Chester Co., and to convey to Charlotte 410 acres, more or less, in Franklin Twp., Hundington [sic; Huntingdon] Co., known as the Bald Eagle Tract, and to relinquish his rights to all personal property, while Charlotte is to pay all debts contracted by her since their separation on 10 Oct. 1799, pay £100 on Joseph’s debt to Jacob Brown, and quitclaim her interest in all other property not assigned to her.  Divorced from bed & board 1 Sept. 1800.  FHL film #1023005, images 66-79 (68).

ODERWALD, Hannah v. John.  Petition of Hannah Oderwald (signed with her mark), “of Lancaster Township in the County of Lancaster,” by her next friend Peter Weily (signed with his mark), sworn to 27 June 1803 and filed at #255 Sept. Term 1803; “married to a certain John Oderwald in the Borough of Lancaster, by the Rev^d D^r Muhlenberg. some years ago”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that some months after the said intermarriage, the said John Oderwald, wilfully & maliciously deserted the said Hannah, his lawful wife, without any cause therefor, nor by reason of any misconduct on the part of the said Petitioner, & hath continued to absent himself from his said wife during the space of four years & two months last past without leaving or furnishing anything for the support or maintenance of his said Wife during all the said period, That your Petitioner does not know where the said John Oderwald went, nor has she heard of him, nor does she know where he at present resides.”  Testimony taken at Lancaster Co. 20 Dec. 1803: Hannah BARTER (signed with her mark), of Graff’s Town, Lancaster Co., states that the “Libellant is her Daughter, that upwards of five years ago the said Libellant intermarried with John Oderwald the Defend^t that the said Parties were married by the Rev^d Henry Muhlenberg, in presence of this Deponent … that last spring about four was 4 years since the said John Oderwald deserted his wife the said Libellant, that is to say on or about [29 April 1799,] that since the said period he has never returned … that the said Hanna Oderwald has her home at the house of the Deponent, & occasionally hires out, & has no other way of supporting or maintaining herself, but by the wages she receives by such hiring, & by the assistance of the said Deponent.”  Divorced 31 Dec. 1803.  FHL film #1023005, images 81-94 (94); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 22-23.

OLDMIXON, Mary v. John.  Petition of Mary Oldmixon (signed M. Oldmixon), by her next friend William Burgess, sworn to 12 July 1805 and filed that day (John acknowledged service of the subpoena by plaintiff’s counsel on 21 July 1805, and of the alias subpoena on 6 Nov. 1805); married 29 July 1787; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said John in violation of his marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given himself up to adulterous practices, and been guilty of adultery.”  Testimony taken 21 Oct. 1807: Elizabeth Brown, of the City of Philadelphia, aged 23 and upwards, states that she has known the parties “for more than six years past, … that she resided in the family of the said Mary and John Oldmixon as a nurse maid, prior to [May 1805], That while she so resided there, the said John Oldmixon seduced the Deponent, to have criminal connection with him, that she had such criminal connection with him and that the said John did commit adultery with this Deponent, by having a carnal knowledge of her body, That she cannot recollect the particular time, when the said John Committed adultery with her, but she believes it was between sixseven and eight years ago.”  Divorced 19 Dec. 1807.  FHL film #1023005, images 95-105 (101).

PAGE, Eve v. Robert.  Petition of Eve Page (signed in German script Eva Pasch[??]), “of the county of Philadelphia by her father and next friend Charles Ginter (signed in German script Carl Günther),” dated 6 May 1801, sworn to at Philadelphia that day, and filed 9 May 1801 at #73 Sept. Term 1801; married 25 Jan. 1798; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Robert in violation of his marital duties, neglected to make any provision for his family, but wasted his substance in riotous living, and has barbarously and cruelly beaten and ill used his said wife, the Libellant;– and has frequently threatened to take the life of your Libellant, and that of her child the fruit of her marriage with the said Robert, and even attempted to put his threats in execution, by reason of which the lives of your Petitioner and of her child were not safe while they remained under the power of the said Robert, and for their preservation they were compelled to flee from his house, and take refuge in the family of your Libellant[’]s father. [¶] Your Libellant further states that the said Robert not content with the injuries committed upon her as above stated, has been false to his marriage bed, and has committed adultery with divers lewd women, particularly with Mary Miller and Ann Rignors, both of the county aforesaid, with whom he continued for a long time to maintain an unlawful connection, but before he could be convicted thereof he fled from the Justice of this state and took up his abode in Burlington in the State of New Jersey, and there continuing his irregular and vicious course of life, he seduced the affections of a married woman whose name is at present unknown to your Libellant, and committed adultery with her; and upon discovery of his crime fled from thence and has since led a wandering & irregular life, still committing great enormities. [¶] As by conduct so flagitious, the object of the object of the marriage contract is entirely defeated, and great scandal & disgrace is brought upon that sacred ordinance, as well as disgrace and shame upon your libellant, to the intent therefore that the innocent victims of the baseness of the said Robert may find comfort, and that an example may be made to deter others from offending in a manner so fatal to the order of society & the happiness of individuals.”  FHL film #1023005, images 107-109 (107).

PAINTER, Jacob v. Eve.  Petition of Jacob Painter (signed with his mark), affirmed at Montgomery County 7 Oct. 1799 and filed on or before 14 Sept. 1799 at #112 Dec. Term 1799 (defendant served personally 11 Dec. 1799); [place and date of marriage and length of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That your Petitioner’s Wife Eve Painter has without any reasonable cause wilfully and maliciously deserted your Petitioner her Husband and has lived absent and apart from him for four years and more last past.”  Testimony taken 8 Sept. 1800 (affirmed): Catherine Major (signed with her mark) states that she is aged about 35 “and that her imployment has been chiefly that of Houswifrey,” that she “is certain that [the parties] have not lived together for six years last past, Eve … lives in the Township of Limerick in the County of Montgomery,” that “She is unacquainted with the particular Reason of her desertion from her Husband, But that She heard Eve Painter and her Mother both say that the Child of which she had lately been delivered was not Jacob Painters begitting but that it was David Hagers”; Jacob Longacre (signed Jacob Longeneker) states that he is aged about 47, farmer, that Eve deserted her husband “for about six years past and that she now resides in [Limerick Twp.] and he had heard the said Eve acknowledge that a certain David Hager was the Father of a Child which she the said Eve had since her desertion from her said Husband and that the said David Hager had Alieonded[?] himself on the said Occasion,” and that about the month of Jan. 1794, he (the deponent) had seen the newspaper ad forewarning all persons from trusting Eve on his account as she had deserted him.  Testimony taken 9 Sept. 1800 (affirmed): Isaiah Wells states that he is aged about 39, works as a goalkeeper at Norristown, and that he was called upon to serve subpoenas on Eve, who “answered him that she should not appear but that if Jacob Painter wold [sic] let her alone she wanted no maintainance from him.”  Divorced 10 Sept. 1800.  FHL film #1023003, images 110-127 (120).

PARHAM, Joseph v. Harriet.  Petition of Joseph Parham, “of the City of Philadelphia,” sworn to before an alderman 7 Nov. 1814 and filed 8 Nov. 1814; married 18 July 1810; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Harriet, in violation of her marriage vow, hath for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices, and been guilty of adultery & especially with a certain Samuel D. Walker.”  FHL film #1023005, images 128-130 (128).

PATTERSON, James v. Jane.  Petition of James Paterson (signed James Patterson), “of the Township of North Huntington [sic; Huntingdon]  Westmoreland County,” sworn to in Cumberland County 2 March 1797, and filed on or before 1 April 1797 when a subpoena was awarded; married 8 July 1778 “a certain Jane HARRIS of the Township of Fermanaugh and County of Mif[f]lin then in the County of Cumberland”; cohabited “from the time of the said Marriage untill the year one Thousand seven Hundred and ninety and during their dwelling and cohabiting together aforesaid they had Issue of their bodies three male children who are now living”; grounds: “That the aforesaid James after the Increase of his Family aforesaid conceiving at expedient and promotive of his Happiness to remove from and dispose of his property in the said County of Miflin in order to settle elsewhere about the first day of December in the year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and ninety Sold his plantation & tract of land in said County to Galbreath Patterson Esquire [¶] That the said Jane hath from the time that your Petitioner sold and disposed of his plantation aforesaid declared she would not remove with your Petitioner to any other place where he might fix his future abode and from that time did desert and abandon your Petitioner and refused to cohabit with him or to see him or speak to him — [¶] That about the first day of September in the year of our Lord one Thousand Seven Hundred and ninety one your Petitioner removed to the Township of North Huntington in the County of Westmoreland aforesaid where your Petitioner became seized and possessed of a Tract of Land containing about two Hundred acres of which there were about sixty acres clear. [¶] And your Petitioner [next four words careted] on the said Land in the [next word careted] s^d Township and County aforesaid for the purpose of accomodating [sic] his wife and Family in case his wife would alter her purpose and design aforesaid, did raise and erect a small dwelling House forty feet by twenty feet on his plantation aforesaid, That your Orator and Petitioner hath continued to live and reside in the said Township of North Huntington in the said County of Westmoreland from the said first day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and ninety one untill this time during all which time as well as from the month of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and ninety aforesaid, the said Jane Patterson hath committed willful and malicious absence from your Orator and Petitioner and willfull and malicious absence from your Orator and Petitioner without a reasonable cause. And at different periods between the said first day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and ninety and the filing of this Bill – to wit, before the removal of your Petitioner and also afterwards– to wit, about the first day of April in the year of our Lord one Thousand seven hundred and ninety two and about the first day of February in the year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and ninety three and about the fourth day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and ninety four and about the fifth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and ninety five and about the tenth day of february in the last year and about [next word careted] the tenth day of September also in the same year last mentioned at Miflin County aforesaid your Orator and Petitioner appeared at Miflin County all the different times aforesaid and caused application to be made to the said Jane Patterson requesting and requiring her the said Jane to live and Cohabit with your Orator and Petitioner and to remove to the said County of Westmoreland with your Petitioner, but the said Jane uniformly during all the time aforesaid refused to live with and cohabit with your Orator and Petitioner and hath persisted in her resolution aforesaid and wilfully and maliciously deserted [next four words careted] and absented herself from your Petitioner and Orator as aforesaid without any reasonable cause and hath ever refused to see or to speak to your Petitioner during all the time aforesaid, although your Petitioner has made repeated attempts for that purpose.”  FHL film #1023005, images 131-135 (133); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Cumberland County Pennsylvania Divorces, 1789-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1994), pp. 5-6.

PAULUS, Sophia v. Peter.  Petition of Sophia Paulus (signed with her mark) for divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Jacob Bunner, (not dated or sworn to) filed 16 April 1788 (with subpoena directed “To Peter Paulus of the Township of the Northern Liberties in the County of Philadelphia yeoman”; served by proclamation and publication); married “in or about the Month of October one thousand seven hundred & Eighty three”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That since the Intermarriage between them the s^d Peter Paulus hath used your Petitioner with great cruelty, beating her & neglecting to provide her with necessary Food & Clothing, until at length the s^d Peter Paulus hath totally abandoned your Petitioner, having gone to settle himself in the Dominions of the King of Spain near the Mouth of the Mississippi & leaving your Petitioner totally destitute. That by the Will of your Petitioner’s former Husband Philip MOSER, your petitioner was provided for by a Devise of certain Goods and also of a House in Union Street & the [next three words careted] profits of the the [sic] third part of his real & personal Estate for Life. That the s^d Peter Paulus hath squandered such part thereof as was moveable before he deserted your Petitioner & hath endeavoured to prevent your Petitioner from receiving the profits of this real Estate during the remainder of her Life, by means of certain Orders or Powers which he hath left behind him for that purpose; so that your Petitioner is in Danger of remaining utterly destitute & in want.” Testimony (place and date taken not stated): Francis Gurney, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, aged 48, states that he has known the Libelant 20 years and the Defendant 8 years, that they lived in his neighborhood about 12 months, and that Peter left the City about 4 or 5 months ago [and with extensive testimony regarding Sophia’s real estate]; Mary Ingard (signed with her mark), of the Nothern Liberties, spinster, aged 15, states that she has known the parties about 12 months and “lived with them as a hired maid at the Rainbow in Campington where they kept tavern.” Charles L. MOSER, of the City of Philadelphia, aged about 16, states “that he is the son of the Libellant,” and lived with the parties for about six months; Lewis d’Uechtrity of the City of Philadelphia, Gentleman, aged 38, states that he knew Peter “to a be a tavern keeper and knew his wife also in that capacity, but has no other knowledge of them; Jacob Bunner, of the City of Philadelphia, hatter, aged 38, states that he has known Sophia “from her Infancy, and has known Peter Paulus Six or Seven years,” that Sophia was living at his house in 1783 “and one evening on his return from Court said Peter Paulus and Sophia came to his home and said they had been married by Mr Mollineux at the home of Mr. James Oillers, The Connection not having been agreeable to the Deponent or the Children of the said Sophia the visits of the said Peter Paulus at his house had been discouraged, they slept together that night, and remained together about two months at the house of this Deponent,” and then kept a boarding house, and “Sometime afterwards said Peter Paulus being much in debt, pressed by his Creditors wanted his wife to remove with him to Fort Pitt which she refused saying she would not leave her Children,” and they later kept a tavern at Campington and then a house in Market St. when he again deserted her and “it is supposed he is gone into the Western County” (and mentioning the guardians of the younger children of Philip Moser); James Oellers, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, aged 41, states that he has known Sophia about 13 years, that she and Peter “were married in Deponents house by the Reverend Mr Robert Molineux a Roman Catholic Clergyman, that “Last Spring said Peter Paulus told Deponent he was going to fort pitt, to look after some land there, and some grain which was due him … [and] thinks that said Sophia Paulus shewed him a letter from said Peter Paulus in which he informed her, he was confined for Debt and desired her to give him some assistance.”   Divorced (from bed & board) 24 Sept. 1788, with decree of alimony of “[t]he Rents Issues & Profits of the third part of the real Estate of her former Husband Philip Moses which were devised to her by her s^d former Husband for the term of her natural Life for her better Support & Maint^ce.”  FHL film #1023005, images 136-167 (142).

PAYNE, Alice v. William Richard.  Petition of Alice Payne, by her next friend Jesse Corfield, sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman (undated) and filed 16 Jan. 1802 at #31 March Term 1802; married 5 June 1795; cohabited “from that time until the month of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred”; grounds: “the said William in violation of his marriage vow, hath, for a considerable time past given himself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery. Your petitioner further states, that before the time she the said Alice was married so as aforesaid, he the said William was married to the said Alice so as aforesaid, to wit, on the twenty sixth Day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine he the said William was married to a certain Jane Todhunter, which said Jane at the time of the marriage of said William with said Alice was alive.”  Testimony taken 9 Sept. 1802 [apparently at Philadelphia]: William Purviss, of the City of Philadelphia, “Stucco Plaisterer,” states that today is the first time he has seen Alice but that he has known William R. Payne for about three years, that “in the fall of the last year he went to Charleston in South Carolina upon business, and frequently saw there the said William R. Payne, was frequently at his house, and dined with him; That the said William keeps a house, and a woman, whose name the deponent believes to be Jane, lives with him, whom he calls M^rs Payne, and who has a son which he calls his, That the said William told this deponent that he had a wife and child in Philadelphia …”; Thomas Walker, of Charleson, S.C., stone cutter, states that he does not know Alice but has known the Defendant about two years, “that the said William R. Payne landed in Charleston (where this deponent lives) about two years ago; that this deponent had some dealings in the way of business with him, and was once in his house about eighteen months or upwards since; that this deponent met there with a woman who was introduced to him by the said William as M^rs Payne and who still continues to live with the said William; and was then generally understood at Charleston to be his wife; that she has a child which is understood to be his, and lives with him … [and he] acknowledged to this deponent that he had a wife in Philadelphia.”  Further testimony taken 16 Nov. 1802: David Lund, late of the City of Charleston, S.C., but now of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, states “that he resided for a short time in the same house with the said William[,] That the said William lives and cohabits with a certain woman named Jane as his wife[,] that the deponent has frequently within the month of June last seen the said William & the said Jane in bed together as man and wife & that the said William & Jane have a Child they call theirs about a year old. That the said William told this deponent that he had a wife living in Philadelphia ….”  “Jane” is identified as Jane McClinky in the interrogatories to be propounded to witnesses.  Divorced December Term 1802.  FHL film #1023005, images 168-187 (172).

PEIFFER, Mary v. Peter.  Petition of Mary Peiffer (signed with her mark), “Wife of Peter Peiffer of the District of the Northern Liberties in the County of Philadelphia, late Mary NUTTER by James Cornish of the City of Philadelphia her next friend,” sworn to 25 Sept. 1787 and filed on or before 6 Oct. 1787 when a subpoena was allowed; married 29 April 1779 “as by a Certificate hereunto annexed and shown to the Court under the Hand of the reverend John Christopher Künze a Protestant Minister of that Date, fully appears”; cohabited “from the Time of their Marriage till the Twenty fourth Day of February One thousand & Seven hundred and Eighty three”; grounds: “during which time several unhappy Disputes and Differences arose between them so as to render her Situation extremely uncomfortable – that on Twenty fourth Day of February aforesaid she was persuaded by her Husband to agree to a Seperation [sic] from Bed and Board and Articles were accordingly drawn and executed by them for that Purpose which are herewith shown to the Court – that your Libellant afterwards discovered – Your Libellant begs leave further to represent to this honorable Court that the Reason which induced her said Husband to desire a Seperation from her was, that he was actually married a second Time to a certain Anna Maria Bauerin in Violation of the previous Vow which he had made to your Libellant, as appears by a Certificate thereof dated June 19. 1782 signed by A. Helfinstein a Protestant Minister – and the said Peter Peiffer still lives and cohabits with the said Anna Marie Bauerin as your Libellant is informed & verily believes.”  Answer of Peter Peifer (signed Peter Peiffer), filed 7 Jan. 1799, admits marrying Mary on the date stated in her petition, “nevertheless divers unhappy differences soon arose between the said Mary & the respondent, which obliged them to separate from bed & board by mutual consent, & accordingly on [5 Jan. 1781] articles of separation were executed between them, the said respondent having first restored to the said Mary all the property which belonged to her before the said Intermarriage, That from that day the said respondent lived seperate from the said Mary who soon after dispatched out of the said State, And the respondent conceiving himself separated fully from the said Mary, consulted with divers holy ministers of the Gospel who were of opinion, that the said respondent might lawfully marry again; and in consequence thereof the bann of marriage between the said respondent & Anna Maria Bauer in the said libel named were published from the pulpit of the church in Germantown three several Sundays and no objection thereto made. That your respondent was afterwards prosecuted by the said Mary Peifer for Bigamy, but the Supreme executive Council of the Commonwealth were graciously pleased to permit a nole prosequi to be entered thereon, the said Mary also thereto consenting, That thereupon new articles of seperation were drawn between them being the same the said Mary hath to the honorable Court here produced, And that the said Mary & your respondent have lived seperate from that time until the present day. That the respondent hath been upwards of thirty years a member of the German Church at Germantown, during which time he endeavored at always to gain the Esteem of his neighbours & hath never broken willfully or maliciously the laws of the Lord.”  Divorced 8 Jan. 1787.  FHL film #1023003, images 188-197 (195).

PEMBLE, Catharine v. David.  Petition of Catherine Pemble (signed Catharine Pemble), “at the present the wife of David Pemble of the City of Philadelphia Taylor … being a Citizen of this State and having resided herein for several years previous to filing this Petition,” by her next friend Tobias Barrett [“Tobias Berrett” on the cover of the subpoena, but signed Tobias Barrett], sworn to at Philadelphia 10 March 1803 and filed that day at #187 March Term 1803 (subpoena marked “Def^t is at N^o 36 North Water Street”); married 14 Jan. 1793; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said David Pemble without a reasonable cause hath committed adultery with a certain woman called the Widow Carrigan as well as with divers other persons since the intermarriage aforesaid.”  Testimony taken 7 Sept. 1803: Francis Lyon, of the City of Philadelphia, taylor, states that “he is about thirty six years of age, that he is a Taylor by trade and lives in the City of Philadelphia,” that he has known Catherine ten years and more and David eleven years and more, that “they lived together and kept house for about seven years of said ten years,” that in 1798 “he was in company with the said David Pember in several different houses in the City of Philadelphia and District of Southwark where Girls of lewd character and ill fame lived which houses were reputed to be & this deponent believes were bawdy house one of them being one of the house commonly called the Chenyey factor, and that the deponent when at said houses hath seen the said David Pemble take lewd Girls into private rooms … and named the Widow Carrajan as one he had often been connected with,” and that “The Deponent understands and believes that the said David Pemble now resides at Charleston in South Carolina.”  Answer of David Pemble (signed by his attorney), filed 6 Sept. 1803, admits the marriage, but denies the charge of adultery.  Divorced 8 Sept. 1803.  FHL film #1023005, images 198-208 (200).

PETERS, Barbara v. Abraham.  Petition of Barbara Peters (signed with her mark) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend George Ingraham (signed George Ingram), (undated and with no jurat) filed 1 March 1797; married “at the City of Philadelphia” 14 Oct. 1785; cohabited “from that time until of late”; grounds: “that the said Abraham instead of behaving with that tenderness which becometh a husband, hath been a tormenter to his said wife, & so maltreated her both in words & deeds, as rendered her condition intolerable, & finally hath unlawfully, & maliciously abandoned his said Wife, without any reasonable cause – [¶] And in particular your libel [next line] libellant sheweth – That after cohabiting with the said Abraham about two months she became pregnant with child, which circumstances so vexed & provoked the evil mind of the said Abraham that he forthwith maltreated your libellant, & by various indignities to her person, threatnings of her life, by assault, & by withholding sustenance & sufficient diet from her, rendered her life miserable; endeavouring as it is thought, thereby to force her the said libellant to leave his house – Nothwithstanding which; finding that his said Spouse continued to reside with him & to provide in some measure for her own support, he maliciously took from her, all the articles of furniture, & other goods & chattels, which were in her possession, & which were her own property, before the said marriage, & that from that time wholly & maliciously abandoned your libellant & her child, leaving her & it without any support whatever– And the bittor better to distress your libellant the said Abraham hath given notice in the public papers, to all persons that he will pay no debts by her contracted alledging [sic] most falsely & cruelly that the libellant hath another husband.”  Answer of Abraham Peters (signed by his procter), filed 2 April 1787, denies the allegations and asserts that he is not her husband because at the time of their marriage, unknown to him for a long time afterwards, she had a husband living by the name of John KENNEDY, and that she beat Abraham “even to the Danger of his life, turning him out of his Bed in the night time.”  Barbara’s replication (undated) states that she did “npt have any other husband living than him the said Abraham, & that the facts in the said answer set forth respecting the said John Kennedy’s being the husband of the said Barbara at her said intermarriage are not true.”   Petition marked 4^th Jan^y 1788 Petⁿ Dismissed  pa[ge]. 356.”  FHL film #1023005, images 209-217 (211).

PETTIT, Eleanor v. Samuel.  Petition of Eleanor Pettit (signed Elenor Petit), “wife of Samuel Pettit [next word careted] late of Chester County,” by her next friend Peter Skeen, sworn to at Montgomery County, being “now resident in the county,” 17 Aug. 1797 and filed 4 Sept. 1797 (defendant served personally by the Constable of Salisbury Twp., Lancaster Co.); married “by the Reverend —[?] Symington “about seven years ago”; cohabited “for sometime”; grounds: “But the said Samuel Pettit after a variety of ill treatment has about two years ago began to cohabit with another woman and has committed several acts of adultery.”  Testimony taken 24 March 1798: Margaret Skeen (signed with her mark), aged 30 or thereabouts, states that she has known the Libellant about 20 years and the Respondent about 8 years, that about six years ago in visiting the Libellant in Chester Co., where she then lived, “the Deponent one morning very early in her bed was attacked by the Respondent, in a most violent and indecent manner,” and that “[he] frequently in her presence abused the Libellant in the most indecent language and at one time, in presence of the deponent, threatened to kill her”; Andrew Todd, aged 44 or thereabouts, states that he has known the Libellant 14 years and the Respondent 7 years, and “verily believes the Libellant has been cruelly treated by the Respondent.”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 31 March 1798: Andrew Jack, aged about 28, states that he has known the parties about 7 years, that he “is married to the sister of the libellant and well acquainted with the circumstances & transactions of the family,” that in Oct. 1792 “the said respondent left his wife the said libellant and her child & went off under pretence of taking up land without leaving them any provision for their support & maintenance in consequence of which the libellant[’]s father was obliged to take them to his own house  And the respondent after a short absence returned but kept away from his said wife and did not to the deponents knowledge & belief again cohabit or offer to return and cohabit with her but after remaining sometime in the neighborhood went over to the upper part of Chester County near to where one Patrick Dougherty lived with whose daughter he was reported to cohabit.” James Skeen, aged 21 years, states that he has known the Respondent 8 years and the Libellant “ever since her infancy,” and that he “is a brother of the libellant” [his testimony otherwise exactly duplicates that of Andrew Jack].  Divorced 19 March 1800.  FHL film #1023003, images 218-235 (234).

PEYATT, Mary v. Benjamin.  Petition of Mary Peyatt, “(wife of Benjamin Peyatt formerly of the County of Washington aforesaid) exhibited by the Reverend David Phillips her father and next friend,” sworn to at Washington Co. 25 May 1790 and filed that day (defendant served by proclamation at Philadelphia and by publication); married [place and date not stated]; cohabited “near three years in Washington County”; grounds: “the said Benjamin on the fifteenth day of August in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty four wilfully and Maliciously deserted and absented himself from his said wife Mary without any reasonable cause and left no provision whatever for the subsistence or support of the said Mary his wife and from the day last mentioned untill the exhibiting this petition to your honours the said Benjamin hath continued his wilful and malicious desertion and absence from his said wife Mary nor is it known to his said wife or the said David whether he is now alive or if alive where he resides & the said Benjamin hath not since his desertion and absence above setforth sent procured or furnished any support or subsistence whatever for his said wife and his two children which she has born[e] to him and which she has since his departure supported and maintained by her own industry.”  Testimony taken at Washington 3 June 1791: Rev. David Philips states “that he was acquainted with Benjamin Peyatt near eighteen months before his marriage with the Libellant, … that the libellant married the Defendant with the Consent of all her friends, … that he this deponent was present when the Reverend William Taylor married them in Washington County at the house of the said William on Peters Creek in the Summer of the year [1781] … that they lived a considerable time at this deponents house and that they continued to live together as man and wife three years following their marriage aforesaid during which time the libellant bore two children to the Defendant,” that he deserted his wife in Aug. 1784 and has never returned, “that he does not know where the Defendant now is  It is more than three years since this deponent heard of him  he was then said to live at Port Vincennes on the Wabash River [in Indiana]  It was then reported that he was married to another woman this deponent has since upon Enquery heard that the Defendant left Port Vincennes”; Colonel David Philips, “the Cousin of the Deponent who subscribed the foregoing,” states that he was present at the parties’ marriage in Washington Co. in 1781, that they “did after the marriage live together as man and wife for near three years on Peters Creek in Washington County near the dwelling of this deponent ….”  Divorced 24 Sept. 1790.  FHL film #1023003, images 236-253 (249).

PINKUS, Elias v. Elizabeth.  Petition of Elias Pinkus sworn to 26 Feb. and filed 27 Feb. 1801 at #142 March Term 1801; married “at the City of Philadelphia” 13 Dec. 1789 “to a certain Elizabeth BAULDY”; cohabited “from that time until the month of [month careted] January April — in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty nine”; grounds: “Elizabeth from the said month of AprilJanuary (from which time she and your Libellant have lived separate and apart from Bed and board) and having totally alienated her affections from your Libellant and given herself up to lewd practices and to the having of adulterous conversation and intercourse with lewd men and more particularly that the said Elizabeth for the space of one year & upwards last past hath lived in the said City in open and avowed adultery with a certain Henry Denkel and yet doth continue to commit adultery with him the said Henry from all of which it is evident that the said Elizabeth hath been guilty of adultery.”  Testimony taken 12 Sept. 1801: Anthony Wechter (signed Anthony Wachter), of the City of Philadelphia, innkeeper, states that he has known the parties for 10 or 12 years, “that Elizabeth Pinkus (the respondent) went in the month of May 1800 went to live with Henry Denkle, and has ever since lived with him & still lives with him apart from her husband, that the said Elizabeth since she lived with Henry Denkle has had a child which is now about six months old, and that this deponent has frequently been at the house of Henry Denkle, where he has seen the said Elizabeth, but does not know whether she has lived in adultery with him, nor did he see any thing which would make him suppose that she did”; Michael Schlessman (signed Michael Schlassman), of the City of Philadelphia, “Taylor,” states “that he has known Elias Pinkus for six or seven years past, but that he should not know Elizabeth Pinkus if he saw her … [and] that he knows nothing at all relating to this case.” Henry Blotterman (signed Henry Blottermann), of the City of Philadelphia, baker, states “that he knows a M^rs Pinkus who lives at Henry Denkle’s, where this deponent has seen her twice at dinner … [and] that he saw her with a child at her breast, but that he does not know whether she has committed adultery with the said Henry, nor whether the said Henry is the father of the child”; Sophia Seyfort (signed with her mark), of the City of Philadelphia, widow, states “that she she known both the Parties to this Cause for near two years past, … that the said Elizabeth Pinkus lived about eight months in the house with this deponent, the said Elias Pinkus being sick all that time at the Pennsylvania Hospital, that the said Elizabeth left the house of this deponent about the month of March 1800 and went to live with Henry Denkle, and has lived with him ever since and still lives with him … that about nine months ago the said Elizabeth Pinkus confessed to her that Henry Denkle was the father of the child which she the said Elizabeth had about that tiem, that this was upon the day she was brought to bed.”  Testimony taken 15 Sept. 1801: Mary Wechter (signed Mary Weachter), of the City of Philadelphia, states “that she has known both the Parties to this cause for about twelve years past … [and] that the said Elizabeth Pinkus in conversation with this deponent about three months ago, told this deponent that Henry Denkle was the father of a young child of her the said Elizabeth which she then had with her, she further told this deponent that she lived with Denkle.”  Divorced 17 Sept. 1801.  FHL film #1023005, images 254-268 (258).

PIPER, Daniel v. Ann.  Petition of Daniel Piper, “an inhabitant of the Township of Tyrone in the County of Cumberland,” affirmed at Cumberland Co. 30 April 1798 [filing date not stated]; he “was united in the holy Bonds of Matrimony with a certain Ann MYERS [place and date not stated]; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Ann did willf some time in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety willfully and maliciously Desert and absent herself from the Dwelling of the s^d Petitioner without a reasonable cause, that your Petitioner is ignorant at Present of her Place of Residence, and that the s^d has not returned since her s^d Elopement.”  FHL film #1023005, images 269-270 (269); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Cumberland County Pennsylvania Divorces, 1789-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1994), p. 7.

POLLOCK, Margaret v. Thomas.  Petition of Margaret Pollock, dated at Philadelphia 5 Jan. 1798 and sworn to in open Court 10 Jan. 1798; married “at the City of Philadelphia” on 10 May 1781; cohabited “from that time until the month of November in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty s [next two words careted] or thereabouts”; grounds: “that the said Margaret from the month of November aforesaid (from which time [next seven words careted] as well as your Libellant can recollect he and your Libellant hath lived separate and apart from bed and board) totally alienated his affections from your Libellant and during all the time that hath since elapsed hath willfully and maliciously deserted and abandoned himself from the said Margaret your Libellant and doth yet continue to absent himself from his said wife, without having at any time hitherto made any provision for her necessary support maintenance and Expenses either by Remittances of money or in any other way, from all which it is Evident that the said Thomas Pollock hath willfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from the said Margaret your Libellant during the space of four years and more.”  Petition marked “9 Oct^r [17]90 n.b.f. pa[ge]. 154.”  FHL film #1023005, images 271-274 (271).

PRICE, Catharine v. Peter.  Petition of Catharine Price, “the wife of Peter Price of the Northern Liberties yeoman … (having resided upwards of two years in this State),” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony (signed with her mark), by her next friend Conrad Wilen, sworn to before a Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas judge on 3 Sept. 1798 and filed 4 Sept. 1798; married “on or about the nineteenth day of December 1780”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Peter Price for several years past and particularly from the first day of January 1797 to this day hath by a series of cruel and injurious treatment rendered the condition of your petitioner intolerable and her life absolutely wretched.”  Petition marked “Sep[t]. [17]98 Settled before Return | Day [i.e., the first day of the December 1798 Term of Court].”  FHL film #1023005, images 275-279 (277).

QUESNAT, Balthazar v. Maria.  Petition of Balthazar Quesnat, “of the City of Philadelphia,” dated at Philadelphia 30 Jan. 1806 and sworn to and filed that day at #68 March Term 1806; married “in the Year one thousand seven hundred & ninety four in the City of Philadelphia, to Maria REINHARD, of the said City”; cohabited “since that time”; grounds: “your Petitioner has lately discovered that his Said wife, unmindful of her duty to him & of her marriage vow, has been guilty of the heinous crime of adultery with one Neven, a Musician residing in the Said City, whereby Your Petitioner has entirely lost his peace of mind, and all hopes of domestic happiness in his present Matrimonial Connection, & has no recourse left but to seek by lawful means a dissolution thereof.”  FHL film #1023005, images 281-283 (281).

REED, Casper v. Freney.  Petition of Caspar [sic] Reed dated and sworn to before a Supreme Court justice 12 May and filed 19 May 1803 at #165 Sept. Term 1803 (defendant served personally on “Phryne Reed … in Franklin County at her dwelling house” 20 July 1803); married in the month of April 1796; “from the time of their marriage [she] never did cohabit with your Petitioner but lived entirely seperate and apart from him”; grounds: “the said Freney thus living seperate and apart from your petitioner hath committed adultery, with some person unknown to your petitioner and who hath begotten a bastard child on the body of the said Freney, your said Petitioner having no commerce or cohabitation with the said Freney, and the said Freney uniformly declaring that your petitioner is not the father of said Child.”  Testimony taken at Letterkenny Twp., Franklin Co., 15 Dec. 1803: Harmon Myers (signed Herm: Meÿer) [no identifying information] states that he “do[es] know [the parties] about five or six years … do[es] not know that [they] lived together since thier marriage … that Freney Reed the above Def^t was delivered of a Child, about One year ago, at which time the [sic] did not live to gether, and further Saith, that he went in the Spring of the year 1803 to the House of Franey [sic] Reed with Casper the above Pl^f for the purpose to Compramise with his wife Franey, about the first Child, at which time She, the s^d Franey tuck the Last Child Out of the Credle, the said Casper Reed ask’d who was the father of this Child, you well know that this Child is not mine youl come, after awhile, & wish me to pay for this Child, but the s^d Franey answered no — and further saith that S^d Reed mentioned agC last Child was not his, which she well knew — s^d Freney mention that if he had lived with her She would not have had any trouble with this — and S^d Reed Demanded to Know the father of s^d Child, but s^d Franey his wife, Still s^d it was non [sic] of his business”; Peter Reed (signed with his mark) states that he “do[es] know [the parties] about Six or Seven years … that the parties [lived apart?] from each Others at the time of marriage, & the[y] did not live together since … that Franey Reed the above Def^t was delivered of a Child about one year ago … [that he] had, soon after the Child was born some Conversation with Freney Reed the above Def ^t about the Father of S^d Child, but he got She give me no direct answer, and … that in the Spring of the year 1803 he was at the House of the s^d Franey Reed, and heard s^d Casper Demanding who was the father of S^d Last Child, s^d Freney his wife give no answer, it was non of his Business that it was not his.”   Divorced 17 March 1804 (Vol. 2, p. 100).  FHL film #1023005, images 285-300 (291).

REILLY, Mary v. Philip.  Petition of Mary Riley (signed Mary Reilly; “Reilly” on the cover) for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend Peter Seravendyke, filed (without a jurat) 9 Jan. 1813 at No. 94 Dec. Term 1812; married in the month of Jan. 1809, “Philip Reilly of the City of Philadelphia, she then being a widow with several children and a comfortable property, derived from her first husband”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That for a considerable time past the said Philip Reilly has become idle and dissipated and frequently addicted to intoxication, having entirely squandered all the property of the Petitioner which was in his power and using no means of labour or industry to maintain either himself or your Petitioner and a young child which your Petitioner has had by him – That on the contrary in his fits of rage and intoxication he has destroyed and injured the furniture &ce in the house in which he resides, and treated the whole family with repeated personal violence – That by cruel and barbarous treatment he has endangered the life of your Petitioner, and offered such indignities to her person, as to render her condition intolerable, and thereby forced her to with draw herself and her children from his familyhouse.”  FHL film #1023005, images 338-340 (338).

RHODES, Mary v. Samuel.  Petition [missing] of Mary Rhodes for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Thomas Fisher, apparently filed in July 1797 when the issuance of a subpoena was authorized, with the note that “Defendant can be found at M^r Winemores on Third Street beween Shippen Street.”  FHL film #1023005, images 301-302 (301).

RICE, Hannah v. Peter.  Petition of Hannah Rice (signed with her mark) for a divorce for bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Joseph Dyer, sworn to at Philadelphia 13 Nov. and filed 19 Nov. 1798 at #89 Dec. Term 1798; married 23 Dec. 1788; [period of cohabitation not expressly stated]; grounds: “the said Peter has beaten & abused your Petitioner on various Occasions, has conducted himself in such a way towards her as to render her Condition intolerable & Life Burthensome, & has driven her from her House & Home.”  FHL film #1023005, images 303-304, 314-316 (314), 326-333, 398-404.

RICE, Hannah v. Peter.  Petition of Hannah Rice (signed with her mark), “Wife of Peter Rice of the Township of Northampton in the County of Bucks,” by her next friend Joseph Dyer, sworn to before a Bucks Co. justice of the peace 28 Sept. and filed 28 Oct. 1801 at #92 Dec. Term 1801; married 23 Dec. 1788; [period of cohabitation not stated, but “hath lived and cohabited” with him as his wife]; grounds: “Peter in violation of his marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given himself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of Adultery.”  Affidavit sworn to 22 Dec. 1803: “Doctor Joshua Jones on his Oath saith, he knows nothing with respect to the Marriage between the parties nor to the Defendants commiting Adultry and with respect to the fifth Interrogatory, he said he was called upon by John Vansant the overseer of the poor of Northampton Township to Visit a person Sick at his house, who he found to be Peter Rice Ill with what he conceived to be the Venereal Disease And upon Questioning [next word careted] him respecting it, and how he had contracted it, he the said Peter Rice denied knowing or confessing of having it and that he knew no other Woman in that way but his Wife. And that he the Deponent Doctored for that complaint and cured him Accordingly some time in the spring of the year Eighteen Hundred.”  Other testimony taken 22 Dec. 1803: John Vansant, of Northampton Twp., “who was Overseer of the Poor of said township three years ago,” states “[t]hat he knew Hannah whilst Hannah DYER and know her and Peter Rice since their marriage for these six or seven years pass [sic] That whilst overseer of the Poor of Northampton the said Hannah he had orders to relieve thesaid Peter and when went to the house where he and Hannah were living together and brought him away to his this deponents house where he employed Doctor Joshua Jones to cure him of his sickness and upon the Doctors telling the complaint and putting the question how he had contracted the disease [next two words careted] he answered he knew not how as he had nothing to do with any other woman but his wife”;  John South, of Northampton Twp., weaver (affirmed), states “[t]hat he hath known Hannah Rice for these fifteen years past and hath known Peter Rice for about seven years and that they lived together as Man & wife about six years ago — That he knew nothing of his committing adultery but his Peter has told him whilst he lived with some woman in Philadelphia in the year [1799] that she had given him the Pox”; Elizabeth South (affirmed) state that “she knew Hannah Rice before her marriage and since and hath known Peter Rice & whilst they lived together as Man & wife and that she hath heard Peter Rice say that he hath had the bad desease (the venereal) and that he had got it of his Housekeeper in Philadelphia which she understood to be since his marriage with her the said Hannah”; John Hagaman, of Northampton Twp., states that “he knew Hannah Rice before her marriage and both her & Peter Rice since for about five or six years past[.] That after Peter’s return from his cure at John Vasant’s he met with Peter and upon asking him how & whether he and Hannah had got to live together – Peter answered yes and that Hannah was not [next line] not the worst of women that he had tried another but that she had set him a fire”; Susanna Willard states that “she hath known Hannah Rice before and since her Marriage with Peter Rice and that she hath heard Peter say that he hath had the bad desease and that he got it of his Housekeeper in Philadelphia since the marriage with the said Hannah”; Derrick Kroesen, of Northampton Twp., states that “he knew Hannah Rice & Peter Rice for these ten years past and that Hannah now lives at his house and on Peter’s coming there a few weeks ago and Hannah telling him (Peter) to go to Philadellphia again and git the Pox Peter said “be sure the dam bitch had given him his winter’s fire [next word careted] wood but he did not know what it was and had to go to another man to know.”  Divorced 24 Dec. 1803.  FHL film #1023005, images 305-313, 317-325 (324).

RICHARDS, Azell, v. Mary.  Petition of Azell Richards, of Montgomery Co., blacksmith, dated, sworn to, and filed 31 July 1804 at #245 Sept. Term 1804; married about the month of Dec. 1797; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “Mary in violation of her marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices, and been guilty of Adultery.”  FHL film #1023005, images 334-337 (336).

RILEY, William v. Mary.  Petition of William Riley, sworn to before an Alderman (at Philadelphia?) 21 Dec. 1811 and filed that day at #187 Dec. Term 1811; married 12 June 1810 “his present wife Mary Riley then Mary CARR”; cohabited “from that time for five days”; grounds: “Mary in violation of her marriage vow has for a considerable time given herself up to adulterous practices and has been guilty of adultery having at the expiration of the five days aforementioned without any known reasonable or alleged cause left your Petitioners House and home and never having returned there. And your Petitioner further charges that the said Mary, after her marriage with your Petitioner as aforesaid, towit, in the month of May in the year [1811], knowingly entered into a second marriage, to wit, with a certain Greenbury German, with whom she has since lived and now live, in violation of her previous vow made to your Petitioner.” Testimony taken 11 March 1812 : Horatio Boate, of the City of Philadelphia, “aged thirty five years and upwards,” states “that he has been acquainted with the Libellant for about five years and with the Respondent about three years … [that] he was present when the Libellant and Respondent [next three words careted] was married. That the marriage took place in the month of June [1810]. The marriage ceremony was performed by the Reverend M^r Birch, pastor of the German Calvinist church in the City of Philadelphia … that the Respondent lived with the Libellant for about five days after their marriage. She then left him and has not since returned to him since [sic]. Deponent further saith that since her marriage with the Libellant he has heard and believes that she has cohabited and lives in the City of Philadelphia with a man by the name of Green German.”  Testimony taken 12 March 1812: William Troutwin (signed William Trautwin), of the City of Philadelphia, aged twenty four years and upwards,” states “that he is acquainted with the Libellant and Respondent, the former he has known for about one year and the latter for about two years. … that he was not present at the marriage of the said parties, that they were generally reputed to be man and wife, and he has understood that they lived together as such for a few days when she left him … that when the Respondent separated from the Libellant as before stated, she left Philadelphia where they were married, and went into the Country, where she remained for about a fortnight and then returned to the City. From her having been acquainted in the Deponents family and as she had then no place to go, Deponent asked her to his house. She was [next word careted] there immediately visited by Greenberry D. German, and about five or six months ago they were married by the Reverend M^r White a minister of the Baptist church and according to the forms of that Church. After the marriage of the Respondent, and the said German, they took two rooms in this deponents house, which they furnished, and have since lived in as man and wife. One of the rooms is furnished as a Chamber, and with but one bed, and is used by them as a sleeping room. Deponent has never seen the Respondent and the said German in bed together, but has no doubt from his own observations that they have been sleeping together since their marriage, at which Deponent was present.”  Divorced 28 March 1812 (according to a notation on the interrogatories).  FHL film #1023005, images 341-348 (347).

RISTEIN/RISTINE, Jacob v. Justine.  Petition of Jacob Ristein (signed Jacob Ristine) dated at Philadelphia [blank] Sept. and sworn to and filed 6 Sept. 1802 at #1 Dec. Term 1802; married at Philadelphia Co. 13 Aug. 1801 Justine HAPPESTEL; cohabited “until the month of October last”; grounds: “Justina from the said time of her marriage with your Libellant totally alienated her affections from him and [next word careted] had given herself up to lewd practices and to the having of adulterous conversation & intercourses with lewd men & more particularly That the said Justina had adulterous conversation & intercourse and did actually commit adultery with a certain Frederick Auchenbach from all which it is evident That the said Justina hath been guilty of Adultery.”  Justine’s answer, signed and sworn to in open court at Philadelphia 6 Sept. and filed 8 Dec. 1802, denies all of the petition’s allegations except the marriage, “and particularly she denies having committed adultery with a certain Frederick Auchenbach or with any other person or persons since her marriage with the said Jacob Ristein.” Testimony taken 20 Dec. 1802 and filed 11 Sept. 1804: John Thöger (signed Johann Thäger, of the City of Philadelphia, Cordwainer, states “[t]hat he is well acquainted with the plaintiff & his Wife the defendant. That about three weeks before Christmas in the year 1801 this deponent went in in [sic] company with a certain Frederick Auchenbach to the house of Philip Strockbein in Kensington in the Township of the Northern Liberties to see his friend John Wagner who occupied the second floor in the house of the said Philip. That it was about 8 oClock in the evening when this deponent & the said Frederick at the house of the said Philip Strockbein, That after being upstairs in the Apartment of the said John Wagner a little while Justina the wife of the Libellant came up & remained there nearly an hour when she went down stairs with the said Frederick Auchenbach; That in a short time after the departure of the said Justina & Frederick this deponent and the said John Wagner looked out of the back window up stairs, it being a clear moon light night, when this deponent saw the said Justina lying on the ground with her clothes up & the said Frederick Auchenbach on the top of her in the Act of copulation; That it was so light that this deponent distinctly saw the bare thighs of the said Justina; That about five OClock in the morning of the succeeding New Year’s night this deponent went with the said Frederick to the house of a Shoemaker on the North side of Arch near Third Street where the Libellant’s wife was at Service, the said Frederick went up to the alley to the kitchen door whither this deponent followed him, & knocked at the door, when the respondent the said Justina hoisted the window up stairs & told the said Frederick in the hearing of this deponent that the kitchen door was unlocked, That he should open it and come up stairs to her; This deponent saw the defendant open the kitchen [next word careted] door enter the kitchen & shut the door after him & then this deponent went away; That this deponent went frequently to the Libellant’s house where his wife & he lived together in the Northern Liberties, in company with the said Frederick Auchenbach. That he often found the Libellant’s wife in the Evening [next three words careted] at the door as if waiting at the door for the said Frederick & as soon as She would see the said Frederick coming She would run to meet him and would often walk off with him; That in consequence of the frequent intercourse between the Libellant’s wife & the said Frederick the Libellant grew uneasy, great unhappiness ensued & finally a seperation between them took place. That this deponent saw the respondent & the said Frederick frequently together since the seperation both in the night & in the day; That the said Frederick often bragged to this deponent of his criminal connection with the Libellant’s wife. This deponent further says That he on Several occasions saw the said Frederick give money to the said Respondent … on his cross examination saith he never saw the said Justina at the house of the aforesaid Philip Strockbein, but the time that he has aforesaid mentioned, and that she did not after she come into the room go out of it until she went downstairs with Frederick Auchinbach and that she did not return afterwards into the room this Deponent saith it was in the Month of February, March or April 1801 but which of the said month she cannot say, that it was not exceeding five minutes after the said Justina and the Said Frederick went out of the room until the Deponent looked out of the Window and saw them laying as he has aforesaid described & that he saw [next word careted] her face & will forfeit his head if it was not her, she had no bonnet on or Cap on, had a blue petticoat on, - Deponent don’t know where John Wagner lives at this time & this Deponent never saw him since. The Deponent Saith that last New Years evening he had been out in company with the said Frederick and that between four & five O#’Clock in the morning they seperated at Hay’s Tavern in fourth street near Branch street, The said Frederick not going into his master’s house, the Deponent followed the said Frederick, but he the said Frederick, did not know that he the Deponent was after him at any time after they had seperated, and Deponent saw him go up the Alley aforesaid described on the north side of Arch Street near third Street that he saw some person look out of the window and on the person speaking immediately knew it to be the said Justina, this Deponent saith he was not five feet from the Window when she spoke and not more than three or four feet from the said Frederick ¶ The Deponent never was present or witness to any dispute or quarrel between the Said Justina and her said Husband, The Deponent saith that he has never seen the said Frederick and Justina togither in the Night since she and her husband Seperated.”  Defendant’s agreement to withdraw answer and plea filed 11 Sept. 1804.  Divorced 11 Sept. 1804.  FHL film #1023005, images 349-360 (356).

ROBINSON, Hugh; v. Margaret.  Petition of Hugh Robinson, “of the City of Philadelphia, Labourer,” dated at Philadelphia 31 Oct. 1801 and sworn to before the Chief Justice and filed that day at #100 Dec. Term 1801; married 10 Feb. 1784; cohabited until 15 July 1794; grounds: “Margaret, disregarding the solemn obligation of the marriage contract, and wholey unmindful of the laws of this Commonwealth, on or about the fifteenth day of July, AD. 1794, did willfully and maliciously desert, and hath ever since willfully and maliciously absented herself, from her said husband, without a reasonable cause.”  FHL film #1023005, images 361-369 (365).

ROOPE – see ROUPE

ROSE, George v. Catharine.  Petition [missing from microfilm and not abstracted on the divorce decree] filed on or before 17 Sept. 1796, when a subpoena was awarded (served personally on Catharine Rose at the borough of Reading 3 Dec. 1796 and 13 March 1797).  Deposition: “On the Sixteenth Day of March in the Year of our Lord [1797] Came before me the Subscriber one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Berks — Conrad Feger who being duly sworn according to Law doth depose and say that he is well acquainted with Catharine Rose wife of George Rose of the Borough of Reading, That the said George Rose left the said Catharine in the Fall of the Year [1793] on account of the Misconduct of the said Catharine[,] That about the Month of July in the year [1794] the said George Rose left Berks County and remained in Maryland or other distant Parts until April [1796] and as this Deponent believes did not come into Berks County at all during the Time aforesaid — That ever since the s^d George Rose left his wife as aforesaid She the said Catharine has resided with her Father Jacob Boyer in Richmond Township in the County aforesaid and that for upwards of two years past a certain Peter Klaser has cohabited and still does cohabit with the said Catharine, That the said Catharine now has a Child which this Deponent believes to be about two years old, That this Deponent believes the said Child to have been born of the Body of the said Catharine having seen her the said Catharine at different Times since the earliest Infancy of the said Child of the Said Child nurse and attend it, and having always heard her speak of the Same Child as her own. This Deponent also upon his Oath saith that he has heard the aforesaid Peter Klaser speak of and to the Child aforesaid as being his own Child in the Presence of the said Catharine and that the said Peter Klaser does maintain the Said Child together with the Said Catharine. This Deponent also saith that the afores^d Peter Klaser and the aforesaid Catharine are reputed in the Neighbourhood of their place of Abode to be married and that he this Deponent has been frequently in the House in which they live and has always seen the said Peter Klaser and the Said Catharine conduct themselves towards each other as Man & Wife and heard them speak of and to each other as such. This Deponent also Saith that the Said George Rose did not seperate himself from his Said wife hastily and inconsiderately but with much Reluctance and only after repeated Proof of her loose Behavior.” [followed by:] “Peter Frailey Esquire being duly sworn according to Law doth declare and say that he well knows the above named George Rose and Catherine Rose, that he has carefully read the foregoing Deposition of Conrad Feger of Reading and that to the best of his Knowledge and Belief the several facts therein stated are true.  Sworn in open Court March 20^th1797.”  Testimony taken 26 Aug. 1797: Jacob Boyer states “ [t]hat he well knoweth George Rose and Catharine his wife, that the said Catharine is his (to wit the Witnesses) Daughter … That the said Catharine now liveth with a certain Peter Klaser, that the said Peter Klaser and the said Catharine have lived together about two years and a half, that for about one year and an half of the Time aforesaid they the said Peter Klaser and Catharine lived together in the same House with him [the? – paper torn] witness, that during the said Time they cohabited together as Man and Wife, that they have for some Time past lived and now live at a small Distance from the Witness but upon the same Plantation and that they still cohabit together as Man and Wife — That whilst they lived with him (the Witness) the said Catharine had a Child born of her Body and that the said Peter Klaser hath always acknowledged [next word careted] himself to be the Father of said Child. That they had cohabited together about one Year before the said Child was born and lived the whole Time in his (the HouseWitnesses) House … that George Rose and the said Catharine were married about Five Years ago, that the said Catharine has lived seperate from the said George near four Years, that she lived the whole of said Time with him [next two words careted] or near the Witness[,] that the said George to the best of his (the Witnesses) knowledge did visit the said Catharine but once which happened a very short Time after their Seperation … that he believes the aforesaid Peter Klaser and the said Catharine to be married, that they have hitherto lived very peaceably together, that he (the witness) considers the said Peter Klaser as his Son in Law and that he hath given him the use of part of his Plantation.”  Subpoena issued to Doctor James Diemer of the Borough of Reading.  Divorced 20 March 1797.  FHL film #1023005, images 370-386.

ROUPE (ROUP on petition, etc.), George v. Ann.  Petition of George Roupe of Middletown, Dauphin Co., sworn to before a judge of the Lancaster Co. Court of Common Pleas 16 March 1802 and filed on or before 19 March 1802 when a subpoena was awarded (served personally upon Ann 11 Dec. 1802 according to her receipt (signed with her mark)); married “about Fourteen years past”; grounds: “Lately the said Ann hath behaved herself in a very lewd and indecent manner, and hath committed Adultery with a certain George Toot and upon a Tryal hath been found guilty.”  Indictment from the Dauphin Co. Court of Oyer & Terminor for December Sessions 1801: “The grand Inquest for the County of Dauphin upon their oaths and affirmations respectively do present, that Ann Roope of Middletown in the Township of Sweetara [sic; Swatara] in the County of Dauphin wife of George Roop of the same place Millwright the first day of November in the year of our Lord [1799] and at divers other days and times between that day and the first day of April in the year of our Lord [1801] at the county aforesaid then and there being a married woman and having a Husband in full life did commit with a certain George Tool contrary to the Act of General Assembly in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [¶] And the Jurors aforesaid upon their Oaths and affirmations aforesaid do further present that the said Ann Roope of Middletown in the Township of Sweetara in the County of Dauphin wife of George Roope of the same place Millright the first day of November in the year of our Lord [1799] & at divers other days and times between that day and the first day of March [1801] at the County aforesaid then and there being a Married woman and having a husband in full life did commit adultery with a certain George Toot, and and then and there did permit the said George to beget a bastard child on the body of her the said Ann contrary to the Acts of General Assembly in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”  Divorced 26 March 1803.  FHL film #1023003, images 387-394 (389); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritable Books, 1995), p. 11.

RUE, Christiana v. Lewis.  Petition of Christiana Rue (signed Christianea Rue), of the City of Philadelphia, by her next friend Robert Walker, sworn to before the Chief Justice 17 Aug. 1801 and filed that day at No. 265 Sept. Term 1801; married Lewis Rue “of the County of Bucks, yeoman,” 3 April 1779; cohabited until 10 Aug. 1788; grounds: “when [on 10 Aug. 1788] he the said Lewis did willfully and maliciously desert and absent himself from the bed and board of your said Libellant without any reasonable cause for so doing and ever since the said tenth day of August aforesaid in the year aforesaid until this present day hath so continued willfully and maliciously to desert and absent himself without a reasonable cause for so doing. And besides he the said Lewis before said day of desertion and absence did barbarously and cruelly treat your Libellant by drunken[n]ess and threatening to take her life so that she was in dayly terror and under dayly apprehentions for fear of her life being taken by him in consequence of such thr[e]atning and that he the said Lewis was and continues to be an habitual drunkard and has ceased to make any provision for the sustainance of your Libellant and her children and also since the marriage aforesaid he the said Lewis has been guilty of criminal connexion with other woman contrary to the marriage, as he himself hath acknowledge and as your libellant is ready to prove.”  Petition marked “31 March 1802 n.b.f.”  FHL film #1023005, images 395-397 (395).

RUSH, Deborah v. Benjamin.  Petition of Deborah Rush, by her next friend Isaac Jones, sworn to 12 April and filed 13 April 1805 at #37 Sept. Term 1805; married 13 June 1793; cohabited until the month of April 1803; grounds: “the said Benjamin in violation of his marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given himself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery and hath at sundry times between the fourteenth Day of March [1804] and the month of July in the same year as well as before and after committed adultery with a certain Elizabeth Meyer and has since the said fourteenth day of March lived with her the said Elizabeth and yet continues to live with her as his mistress.”  Testimony taken 14 Nov. 1805: Henry McMahon, of the City of Philadelphia, states that “I know them both. I have known Benjamin Rush about three years, and Deborah Rush about two years … I was hired by Benjamin Rush to work in his distillery, which he carried on in Durham township, Bucks county, and I frequently saw him and a woman named Elizabeth Moyer [sic], who lived in the house with him as a housekeeper, in bed together. The said Elizabeth had a child with her, which Benjamin Rush was very fond of, and often said was his child: I went to live with him in November, [1802]; & the said Elizabeth then lived there with her child, and continued to live there about a year; and during that time she and the said Benjamin bedded together as man and wife, except when he was away occasionally from home, or they had some quarrel between them for a short time now and then: and when she left the said Benjamin’s house, she appeared to be pregnant, and I saw her about four months ago with a young child in her arms, which was not the same that she had with her when she lived at Benjamin Rush’s house. At the time she left his house as I have mentioned, he brought her himself to Philadelphia, and when he returned home, took his wife Deborah Rush with him from town. … The said Benjamin does not now live with his wife, the libellant: In the month of March [1804], he gave up business in the country, and came with his wife, John Husselbach and myself to Philadelphia where he meant to set up business. He and his wife had been upon bad terms before, and when they came to town, she remained at lodging without him a few weeks, and then went to her father’s, Isaac Jones, where she has been ever since, and still is. When he came to town, I heard him tell his wife that he would not have anything more to do with her, and she was quite reconciled to parting with him. She complained of his being connected with Elizabeth Meyer and other women; and he blamed her for taking sometimes too much liquor. He acknowledged then in my hearing he had a son by Elizabeth Myer [sic], whom he called Benjamin Rush after himself; and that he also had a daughter by the said Elizabeth, whom he called Elizabeth Rush … When Benjamin Rush brought Elizabeth Myer to Philadelphia, and took his wife home with him, when he returned, his wife suspected that he had been connected with Elizabeth Myer, and she asked me and John Husselbach and another young man who lived in the house whether Elizabeth Meyr had been there, and we all denied that she had been there and kept it secret for some time from M^rs Rush, but afterwards we told her that Elizabeth Myer had been there; M^rs Rush and her husband often disputed together on this account, and he often abused and scolded her and sometimes beat her and pulled her by the hair, and once took up a lamp which was burning and threw it at her. I interfered three times and oftener to prevent his beating her. For three or four weeks before they came to Philadelphia they did not sleep together; but they did sleep together after we told M^rs Rush that Elizabeth Myer had been at the house and had slept with Benjamin Rush. Since they came to Philadelphia, I have several times seen Benjamin Rush in company with the said Elizabeth Myer, and I heard the said Benjamin acknowledge in the last summer that he boarded in the same house with her, and that he was lawfully married to her; this he told his wife in my presence.”; George Humes, of the city of Philadelphia, distiller, states that “I have known both the said Parties better than four years. … I worked for Benjamin Rush at his distillery when he carried it on in Philadelphia, and afterwards when he went to Durham in Bucks county. He purchased a place there and went to build a distillery on it, in the spring of the year [1802] to the best of my recollection. I was the only person who went with him to Durham; he left his wife and child in Philadelphia. While he lived at Durham I frequently saw him and Elizabeth Myer in bed together. He brought her there as a cook; and she cooked and washed for him and some others, and slept with him. She had a child with him, which I heard Benjamin Rush acknowledge to be his. The said Elizabeth continued to live with him when I left him, which was while he lived at Durham. I have heard him talk of having connexion with several other women, and he made a joke of it. His wife was never at Durham while I was there. … I have often seen Deborah Rush at her father’s, Isaac Jones, since she came from Durham, and she appears to live there. I saw her first a short time after she came from Durham, at the house of a M^rs Powel in Green street where she then lodged. Sometime last winter I went to the house where I was told Benjamin Rush lived, and saw him there, and also Elizabeth Myers, who came in the house while I was there.”; John Husselbach (signed John Hasselbach), of the City of Philadelphia, flour-merchant, states that “I have known Benjamin Rush about three years, and Deborah Rush about two years. … Benjamin Rush employed me to work in his distillery in Durham township, Bucks county, in March in the year [1802]. There was a woman named Elizabeth Moyer, that he employed as a housekeeper, and who lived there when I first went to Benjamin Rush’s. She and Benjamin Rush commonly slept together, without they quarrelled, as they sometimes did. I often saw them in bed together. We kept the distillery going all night, and the men who attended it often went into Benjamin Rush’s room to light a candle, or make a fire. That was the only private room in the house; there was but one bed in it, and Elizabeth Moyer had no other place to sleep in. She had a young boy with her, and I heard Benjamin Rush say he was his son. Elizabeth Moyer left the said Benjamin’s house some time in the fall of [1803]. He brought her and her children down to Philadelphia. She looked to be with child then. And about five weeks after Elizabeth Moyer left his house, he brought up his wife and her son. His wife enquired about Elizabeth Moyer and whether she had been there; but we did not like to tell her at first, and we denied it; but afterwards, about three or four weeks before we broke up to move down to Philadelphia, we told her of it. Benjamin Rush being then in town. For a few nights before they came to town they did not sleep together, but I can not recollect for how long a time. In March [1804] Benjamin Rush moved to Philadelphia, and I continued in his employ about five months afterwards, and lived with him in the same house, and I saw him and the said Elizabeth Moyer in bed together almost every morning, when I got up, as I had to pass through their room. Two children of the said Elizabeth were there, which Benjamin Rush acknowledged to be his. Some time last winter, I think in the month of February, I slept one night at his house, and I saw him and the said Elizabeth in bed together; they were together the whole night and I slept in the same room. … M^rs Rush did not live with her husband during the time that I stayed with him after he came to Philadelphia, and I have never seen her at his house since. I was once at her fathers and then saw her there. I do not know who the said Benjamin now lives with. I have not seen him for a good while.”  Divorced 13 Dec. 1805.  FHL film #1023005, images 405-423 (418).

RUSSELL, Joseph v. Margaret.  Petition of Joseph Russell sworn to at Philadelphia 5 Aug. 1800 and filed the same day at #331 Sept. Term 1800; married a certain Margaret JOHNSON at Philadelphia Co. 27 March 1793; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “the said Margaret his wife hath alienated her affections from him and given herself up to Lewd Practices and did commit adultery with a Certain William Wopples of Sussex County in the State of Delaware in the month of November 1799 on board a shallop on a passage from the said State to the port of Philadelphia.”  FHL film #1023005, images 424-428 (427).

RUTHERFORD, Alexander v. Agnes.  Petition of Alexander Rutherford for divorce “from his Bed and Board without any Allowance of Alimony as all her Property hath been restored and Granted to her,” sworn to at Philadelphia 4 June 1788 and filed that day (“Nearly opposite the Proth^ys Office in 3^d Street” noted on subpoena); married 15 April 1782 “a certain Agnes STEEL, the Widow and Relict of John Steel”; cohabited “for some time”; grounds: “the said Agnes frequently at Times before and constantly since the Eighteenth Day of April [1784] hath totally alienated her Affections from your Libellant, by having without any just Reason or Cuase, having deserted his Bed and Board and depriving him of all that Aid comfort and Assistance which is due from a Wife to a Husband … that a Part [next page] a Part of is Property in the State of Delaware hath been arrested and attached in Order to discharge Debts due from her former Husband and that this Libellant voluntarily consented that a Restoration of all the said Agnes her private Property previous to such their Intermarriage should be returned and restored to her, but that not content with such Return and Restoration, when the Business of your Libellant called him to another State, she being made acquainted with his Absence, entered his House against the Will and Consent of those who had Charge of the same, forced two Locks and took away such Property as she chose. That upon every occasional Business out of the State he is liable in Consequence of such her Conduct to a similar Treatment  In Consequence whereof his personal Property can never Remain in a state of Security as by the Marriage as it now stands the said Agnes will in his absence claim a Right of Prerogative and Superiority over any those who may confidentially be left in Charge of the same.”  Petition marked “25 Sep[t]. 1788 pet[itio]ⁿ Quashed with Costs | pa[ge]. 416.”  FHL film #1023005, images 429-434 (432).

RYAN, Phoebe v. Thomas.  Petition of Phoebe Ryan (signed with her mark) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Peter Young, sworn to before a Supreme Court Judge at Philadelphia 24 Feb. and filed 25 Feb. 1796 at #180 March Term 1796; married in the month of Jan. 1793; cohabited “for some time”; grounds: “the said Thomas Ryan hath from time to time & more particularly within the last six weeks offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable & her life burdensome & thereby forced her to withdraw from his House.”  Petition marked “7 Jan^y 1797 Struck off by M^r [W.] Rawle [Petitioner’s counsel].”  FHL film #1023005, images 435-439 (437).

SCHORTZ, Tobias v. Charlotte.  Petition of Tobias Schurtz (signed in German script “Tobias Schortz”) “of Bethlehem Township in the County of Northampton and State aforesaid [i.e., Pennsylvania],” sworn to before a Northampton County justice of the peace 16 Aug. 1794 and filed at Sept. Term 1794 on or before 24 Sept. 1794 when a subpoena was allowed; married “on the Sixth Day of April in the Year 1795 … with Charlot HARTMAN his present Wife”; cohabited “from that Time until December the same Year aboves^d”; grounds: “the said Charlot in December in the Year 1785 aforesaid in Violation of her Marriage Vows hath alienated her Affections from Your Libellant, and that the said Charlot in December abovesaid withdrew herself from the House in which they lived, and wilfully and Maliciously deserted and absented herself from Your Petitioner, without any reasonable Cause, and hath ever since Continued so to do by withdrawing herself to Upper Saucon Township in the County of Northampton aforesaid. [¶] Your Libellant therefore expressly Charging the said Charlot Hartman with wilfull and Malicious Desertion and absence from him without reasonable Cause for the space of Eight Years and upwards since their said intermarriage.”  Testimony sworn to or affirmed 20 March 1795: Jacob Houch, “of the Township of Lower Saucon in the County of Northampton,” states inter alia “That he knows both the Libellant and Defendant, the Libellant about Sixteen Years, and the Defendant about Twenty. That the said Defendant is a Daughter of Francis Hartman of Upper Saucon Township in the County of Northampton; and that the Libellant lives in Nazareth (late Bethelem) Township in the County aforesaid … That he knows of and was present at the marriage of the Libellant and Defendant. That they were married in the House of Francis Hartman, the Father of the said Defendant, in upper Saucon Township afs^d on the Twenty fifth day of April, One thousand seven hundred and eighty five, by Jacob Mohry Esquire, then a Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Northampton, in the presence of this Affirmant and fifteen or twenty other Persons present … That in the Month of December, In the Year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty five said Defendant withdrew from the said Libellant, and for as much as this Affirmant knows, wilfully and maliciously, without reasonable Cause, and from that Time was Absent and still continues so to be, from the said Libellant … That He heard the said Defendant removed to her Father’s House. That she the said Defendant now resides with her Father in Upper Saucon Township, where this Affirmant Seen her on Friday the Sixth Instant, at which Time, He this Affirmant, delivered her the Notice from the Commissioner desiring her to come forward and give in the names of Witnesses on her Part, if any she had, so that the said Commissioner might take their Depositions … That since the separation of the said Defendant from her Husband, she the said Defendant had a Female Bastard Child, that Francis Hartman, the Father of the said Defendant, informed this Affirmant, That a Certain Jacob Koup, a Hired Man of his the said Francis, was the Father of the said Child, who, it is generally reported, wanted to Marry Her, but the said Francis Hartman would not suffer it, saying, He would sooner maintain three more Bastards than the said Jacob Koup should have her”; Daniel Roher, “of the Township of Bethlehem in the County of Northampton,” states inter alia “That He knows the Libellant, and did See the Defendant when she removed from upper Saucon Township in the County aforesaid, from her Father, to live and cohabit with the said Libellant, otherwise he does not know her. That he has been acquainted with the said Libellant as Long as he can remember … That he was not at the Marriage of the Libellant and Defendant; but heard of it from the said Libellant immediately after, that is, about a D[ay – torn] or two after the Wedding, which is about Ten years since”; David Jones, “of the Township of Nazareth in the County of Northampton,” states inter alia That he knows the Libellant – became acquainted with him last Winter was a Year. That He knows the Defendant only by sight. That He, this Deponent, was at Her (the Defendant) Father’s House this last Summer, when He saw the said Defendant and Her Father. That they, all three, sat down on a Trough at the Well. That the Deponent asked the Defendant whether she would live with her Husband again (meaning the Libellant), to which the said Defendant replied ‘She never would live with him any more. He (meaning the said Libellant) might go to the Devil and Marry again as quick as He pleased – she never would hurt the Hair of his Head’”; George Neyhardt (signed George Neyhard), “of the Township of Nazareth in the County of Northampton,” states inter alia “That He knows the Libellant and Defendant, became acquainted [next word careted] with the Libellant [next word careted] about Twenty years since and has so continued to be. That He became acquainted with the said Defendant since her Marriage with the said Libellant, when they Cohabited and lived together [next word careted] then in Bethlehem Township (now Nazareth Township) about seven, eight, nine or ten years since. That He this Deponent lived within a half a mile of the said Libellant and Defendant … That He was not present at the Marriage … That He went past the House of Tobias Shurtz, the Libellant, in the fall of the Year, about nine or Ten Years snce, that He seen a Waggon stand before the Door of the said Libellant loaded with Household goods, that He then and there Seen Francis Hartman, the Father of the said Defendant, but not the Libellant. That He afterwards heard s^d Francis Hartman had come, took his Daughter (the said Defendant) away with her goods.”  Divorced (as Tobias and Charlotte Shortz) 8 April 1795.  FHL film #1023005, images 606-637 (611).

SCOTT, Deborah v. William.  Petition of Deborah Scott (type of divorce sought not stated) “of the City of Philadelphia married woman by her mother and next friend Sarah BOYD,” dated 25 Nov. 1805, sworn to before an Alderman [at Philadelphia?] 28 Nov. 1805, and filed 3 Dec. 1805 at #172 Dec. Term 1805; married “on the second day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said William in violation of his marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given himself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery [next four words careted] with a person unknown.”  FHL film #1023005, images 441-442 (441).

SCOTT, Mary v. Edward.  Petition “of Mary Scott Wife of Edward Scott of the City of Philadelphia” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Robert Scott, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 18 Sept. 1795 and filed that day; married “about four years since”; grounds: “the said Edward unmindfull of his Marriage Vow soon after the said intermarriage and at divers Times since and particularly about the Month of July or August in the year 1792 and about the Month of February in the year 1794 without any sufficient Provocation beat and kicked and otherwise abused your Petitioner in a cruel and barbarous Manner [next six words careted] so as to endanger her Life; he hath also turned her out of Doors and offered such other Indignities to her Person as to render her Condition intollerable [sic] and Life burthensome and thereby forced her to withdraw from his House and Family.”  Petition marked “Ended before Court | vidi [i.e., see] app^ce Dock^t 1 vol. pa[ge] 1.”  FHL film #1023005, images 443-448 (445).

SCOTT, Mary v. John.  Petition of Mary Scott (signed with her mark) “(wife of John Scott late of Washington County aforesaid) exhibited by James HOWLETT, her brother and next friend,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice “at Washington in the County of County third [changed to?] fourth day of November A.D. 1801,” and filed at #364 Dec. Term 1801 (sheriff’s return of the subpoena issued to John notes that “he is not to be found, nor can I discover where his last place of abode usually was, he having departed from this State many years ago according to the best Information I have been able to obtain”); “legally married to the said John Scott” [place and date not stated]; cohabited “more than seven years in Washington County aforesaid”; grounds: “the said John in the Month of October in the Year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and Ninety-one, wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from his said wife Mary, without any reasonable cause, and left no provision whatever for the Subsistence or support of the said Mary his Wife; and from the date last mentioned untill the exhibiting this petition to your Honors, the said John hath continued his wilful and malicious desertion and absence from his said Wife, nor is it known to his said Wife Mary, or the said James, whether he is now alive, or if alive, where he resides; And the said John hath not since his desertion and absence above set forth, sent procured, or furnished any support or subsistence, whatever for his said Wife and his four Children, which she has born[e] to him, and which she has since his departure supported and maintained by her own Industry.” Testimony sworn to 23 April 1803: Henry Crooks and Jane Crooks (signed by Henry above the mark of Jean Crooks): “Sur Libel for Divorce from the Bonds of Matrimony [¶] Washington County and Commonwealth of Pennsy^a Ss. [¶] In pursuance of A Rule of the Supreme Court of the 1^st January, 1803, directed to one William Mulkerke and Samuel Shannon two of the Justices of the peace in and for Said County, on the 23^rd Day of April 1803 Personally before us Came Henry Brooks and Jane Brooks who being duly Sworn deponeth and Saith that (John Scott, the defendant of the above Libel) was Married to Mary Howlett the plaintiff in this Case on tuesday the 17^th day of March 1785[?] at the House of Andrew Howlett (father to the plaintiff) then Living in Hartford County Maryland by A M^r John Clarke A Minister of the Presbyterian profession they these deponent [sic] being present at the time of the Marriage, They John Scott and Mary his Wife sometime in the following Month (April) after they were Married Removed from Maryland into Robinson Township, on the Waters of Robinson Run in Washington County Pennsy^a they the said John & Mary Continued to Live together about Eleven years during which time they had five Children born one of Which died before Scott left his Wife [next page] these deponants further saith that after Scott Abandoned his Wife and family he Continued in the Settlement of Robinson Run and Worked at the Carpenter Business for the Space of One year and an half or thereabouts, and then left that part of the Country, leaving no Support for his Wife and Children excepting two Cows, and has not since been heard off, but from information from other persons [¶] these deponants further Says, that the Said Mary Scott has been very Industrious and has raised and educated her Children to the best Advantage her Situation and Circumstances Would Admit of Since the departure of her husband, these deponents further Says .. that M^rs Scott is A Woman of Good Character that Suit has been brought against her for her husbands debts and her Labour Swept off by Unfeeling Creditors not only the Cows that was Left, but the principal part of What was procured by her Own industry they have no prospect of the Return of Scott from any information that they have Received, not having heard any Account of him for Several Years past”; James Howlett (signed Ja^s Howlet) “At the same time Personally before us, Came James Howlett Who being duly Sworn Saith that he was at the Marriage of John Scott and Mary Howlett at the House of Andrew Howlett in Hartford County Maryland, when the Said John was Married to the Said Mary by A Certain Rev^d John Clarke A Minister of the Presbyterian profession. in A short time after the Said John and Mary were Married they Moved out[?] from Maryland to the Waters of Robinsons Run in Washington County Pennsylvania and Continued to Live together for Several Years and had four Children during that time The Said John Abandoned his Wife and Children [next three words careted] and left them destitute of Support, this deponant further Saith that he never heard any Certain Account of the Said John Since he Absconded nor knows of no hope or prospect of his Return. the Said Mary Since the absence of her husband by her Own Industry has Raised and Educated her Children to the best Advantage her Situation and Circumstances would Admit of. This deponant further Saith that the said Mary Always Supported A good Character both before and Since her Marriage with the Said John.”  Divorced (apparently on the first Monday of September in) 1804.  FHL film #1023005, images 449-462 (454).

SEAL/SEALE, Mary v. John Polus. Petition of Mary Seale (signed Mary Seal), “of the township of Concord in the county of Delaware,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Thomas Newlin, affirmed (without signature) before a Supreme Court Justice 8 Nov. 1792 and filed that day (defendant served by the Sheriff 24 Nov. 1792); married “the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & eighty eight at the county and township aforesaid … to a certain John Polus Seale now of the township of Goshen in the county of Chester Farmer”; cohabited “for about three years”; grounds: “That about one year last past the said John forgetting the duty he owed to the Libellant withdrew his affection from her without any cause but his own evil-minded disposition & did frequently abuse her often threatening to beat her all which your Libellant endured in hopes of reformation & amendment. But that the said John on or about the first day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & ninety five at the county of Delaware removed your Libellant to the house of Joseph Trimble in Concord under pretence of his going to Germany & has frequently upon the application of your Libellant refused to receive her into his house & family, and that the said John hath ever since wilfully & maliciously abandoned her. That the said John has considerable real & personal property & is able to contribute to the support of the Libellant as by his marriage vow he is bound to do.”  FHL film #1023005, images 463-467 (465).

SELSER, Barbara v. Michael (of York Co., yeoman, according to the subpoena).  Petition “of John Etter of Lancaster County Yeoman, Son and next friend of Barbara Selser the wife of Michael Selser of York County Yeoman, on Behalf of the said Barbara (signed with her mark) for divorce from bed & board and for alimony, sworn to at York County before a York Co. judge of the Court of Common Pleas 27 April 1790, and filed on or before 4 May 1790 when a subpoena was awarded; [place or date of marriage, and period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Michael Selser on the first day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and Eighty Nine, at Hopewell Township in the County of York aforesaid, with Force and arms &^c in and upon the said Barbara Selser in the Peace of God and the Commonwealth then and there being, an Assault did beat, wound, and evilly treat, so that her life was greatly despaired of; –and the said Michael in the Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace of the said County of York on the last Tuesday of January 1790, plead Guilty, a Copy of which proceedings is are herewith shown. – That at an earlier period, the said Michael shot at and wounded the said Barbara in a most dangerous manner. [¶] That the said Michael hath by cruel and barbarous treatment endangered the life of the said Barbara, and hath offered such indignities to her person, as to her render [next word careted] her condition intolerable, or life burthensome, and hath thereby forced her to withdraw from his house and family, and hath thrown her into the greatest distress and misery. [¶] Under these circumstances, the Petitioner apprehends it will be impossible for the said Barbara to live with the said Michael, and thinks that provision for the payment of Alimony should be made for the seperate support and maintainance of the said Barbara, in such reasonable way and in such proportion, as the Judges of the Supreme Court may think proper to award and adjuge.”  FHL film #1023005, images 468-473 (470); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), p. 80, and at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), p. 2.

SERVOSS, Ann v. William.  Petition of Ann Servoss sworn to before the Mayor 21 March 1803 and filed 22 March 1803 at #3 Sept. Term 1803 (defendant served by proclamation and publication); married “on the twenty seventh day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety three”; cohabited “from that time untill May in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven”; grounds: “that the said William on the [blank] of in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety three [next word careted] Seven hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Ann and such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four years and upwards without any just and reasonable cause and yet doth continue to absent himself from her the said Ann– [¶] And whereas also your libellant further complaining sheweth that the said William on the [blank] day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine [blank spaces were left for the date, and later completed] did knowingly [next two words careted] & willfully enter into a second marriage with a certain Elizabeth Jones in violation of the Law of God as well as his vows and faith plighted to her the said Ann whose mariage [sic] is still subsiting [sic].”  Testimony taken and filed 8 Sept. 1804: Elizabeth Servoss, “of the Northern Liberties, Widow,” states inter alia that she was married to a Brother of the said William Servoss, and has known the said William and the Libellant Ann Servoss, since April in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety three … that in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven the said William Servoss went away from Philadelphia, and left the Libellant there, and she has since that time always been in Philadelphia, except during the yellow fever, that the said William after he went as aforesaid was backward and forward several times to and from Philadelphia but did not after the said time live with his wife, nor did he go and see her when he came to Philadelphia so far as the deponent knows, or believes, or has heard; that it will be four years next month since the last time the said William was in Philadelphia, and he then came to the husband of this deponent and told him in her hearing and presence that he was going to settle part of some lands belonging to his father’s estate, which are, the deponent believes, about three hundred miles from Philadelphia, and he got from the deponent’s husband clothes and money for the purpose, but whether he went to the said lands or where he went to the deponent does not know, and she does not know where he is now. That since the year seven hundred and ninety seven, the said Ann Servoss has been supported by her own industry and the assistance of her Brother, Donald M^cKensie, and has received no support from her husband, and he left her no means of support when he went away at that time; that for some time after he went away the said Ann lived with her said Brother, and afterwards kept a shop herself in Vine street, and supported herself in that way. That the said Parties, before the defendant went away as aforesaid, did not live in much harmony together, he being much addicted to drink, so much so that he was incapable of supporting himself, and his father had to do a great many things for him”; John MCKENSIE, “of the City of Philadelphia ship joiner,“ states inter alia that he is the Brother of the Libellant, and has known William Servoss, the defendant, for sixteen years and upwards … that the last time this deponent kows of his (the said William’s) being in Philadelphia was in the fall of the year one thousand seven hundred & ninety eight.”  Divorced 22 Dec. 1804.  FHL film #1023005, images 474-487 (478).

SHEARER, Margaret v. William.  Petition of Margaret Shearer, by her next friend David Bradford, Esq., sworn to before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Washington County 26 May 1790 and filed at #28 May Term 1790 (subpoena issued to William Shearer of Washington County, yeoman); [place and date of marriage not stated]; cohabited “about six months in the County of Washington aforesaid”; grounds: “the said William five years and one half ago turned your petitioner his said wife out of his house after having very often beaten abused and personally ill treated your petitioner and rendered her by his repeated abuse and menaces afraid of her life and since that time has made no provision for her sustenance or support or for the sustenance or support of her child which since the separation and abuse aforesaid She has borne to him and which is now six years old  that the said William is constantly drunk when he can possably[?] procure spirituous liquor and whether drunk or sober has always during the time he lived [next word careted] with your petitioner manifested the highest degree of ill nature and irreconcileable hatred to your petitioner and that he has absented himself from your petitioner his wife for more than four years without any reasonable cause wilfully and maliciously and has repeatedly and solemnly declared that he would never be reconciled to your petitioner as his wife or return permit her to return to him  that the said William has always refused and neglected and still refuses to make any provision whatever for your petitioner or her child since his desertion absence and abuse aforesaid.” Defendant’s petition filed 30 July 1790: “The Petition of William Shearer of Washington County | Humbly Sheweth | That your Petitioner received a Subpoena the twenty fourth day of this July One Thousand Seven hundred and Ninety, Commanding my appearance before your Honorable Court the Second day of this month at the Instance of my Wife Margaret Shearer, Therefore the Court must have been held at least twenty days before the Summons was received to attend at Philadelphia, Your Petitioner therefore humbly begs your Honorable Court, that Should a Tryal take place it may be held and tryed in Washington County the place of both our residence as I purpose Shewing Cause why a divorce should not take place, and your Petitioner as in duly bounds shall pray.”  Certificate (faint) dated at Chartiers 4[?] Dec. 1790 and signed Matthew Henderson: “To all whom this may concrn I —ie[?] that William Shearer & Margaret his wife were regularly [next word careted] married by me according to the rules of the church of Scotland, in her fathers house; Her parents Brother & Sisters present & no objection offered against their marriage. their marriage was seven years ago June last. during said[?] time or time of year he the said William was in this neighbourhood where his wife lives all along excpt one ramble of about fourteen months, & since that I never heard of any misconduct that he could be charged with only of some publick places makes too free with spiritous Liquors & that not frequent as far as I understand & he lives only betwixt two or three miles from me, I never heard that his wife protest to say that he used her ill by word or deed, & yet she left him before he took the fore mentioned ramble – further I never heard that said William was or can be charged with taking up with or keeping company with any woman to occasion any Jealousy.”  William’s second petition, dated 5 Dec. 1790: “The petition of William Shearer of Washington County Humbly Sheweth. [¶] That your petitioner hath understood, that his wife Margaret Shearer is suing for a Divorce, and that he was served with a Subpona to appear Before your Honours the fourth of July Last and another to appear the twentefourth of September and the Latter was not served on your petitioner untill the said twentefourth of Sept[ember] Which made it impossible for your petitioner to Appear. [¶] Your petitioner Begs Leave to Represent to your Honours, That he has provided a place of residence for her and has Desired and Requested of her his Said Wife to Come home and Live with him, But by bad Advice from her friends, She Continues to Absent herself and My Child from your petitioners Bed & Board to the great Loss and Trouble of your petitioner, therefore I Greet your Honours that it be Tried in Washington County, Where we may have our Evidence and where T–[?] Determined to Shew Just Cause why, a Divorce may not be Grant’d – And furthermore the Disappointments which your petitioner has Sustained by his said Wife’s absence, and the Scarcity of money makes it impossible to attend a Trial at Philadelphia. [¶] Your petitioner hopes that your Honours will take his Case into your Serious Consideration and afford him an Equal Share of the Sut[?] As your Honours may think proper.”  Petition marked “31 July 1791 Discont^d | pa[ge] 337.”  FHL film #1023005, images 488-503 (500).

SHEIFLEY, Susanna v. George.  Petition of Susanna Sheifley (signed with her mark), “(wife of George Sheifley) late of Philadelphia County Yeoman,” by her next friend George Moyer, sworn to 6 Nov. 1800 and filed 7 Nov. 1800 at #112 Dec. Term; married “on the twentieth day of May one thousand Seven hundred and ninety five”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “that the said George Sheifley instead of behaving himself with that tenderness and humanity which becometh a Husband, hath been a Tyrant and Tormenter to your Libellant, and by his cruel and barbarous treatment hath withdrawn and seperated himself from [next five words careted] the aid and comfort of your Libellant and family thereby obliging your Libellant with her two Children to seek the aid and assistance of friends. In particular your Libellant sheweth to the Court here, that after the celebration of the said marriage the said George Sheifley hath given himself up to, for these several years past frequenting Taverns and drinking of spiritous Liquors, and by habits of intoxication hath rendered himself incapable of managing and taking care of his said family as a husband ought to do. That he has wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from your Libellant and family without any reasonable cause for and during the term and space of four years past and upwards. That your Libellant is a poor woman and endeavours by honest labour and Industry to earn bread and clothing for herself and children, and that having no hopes of her said Husbands reform and returning to said family, therefore honestly prays, that a Subpœna may issue.”  Testimony sworn to 21 Jan. 1801: Hannah Moyer (signed with her mark) states inter alia “that she is the mother of Susannah Sheiffley, and has known George Sheiffley since he was a child … that they were married about six years ago, and lived together not quite two years … that the said George Sheiffley was born in the State of Pennsylvania, and has always lived in it untill he deserted his wife as hereafter mentioned, and that the said Susannah was also born and has always lived in the said State; That the said George Sheiffley deserted his said wife four years and eight weeks ago from last Christmas, and has not since that time done any thing towards the support of his family, but the said Susanna has lived together with her two children with this deponent. This deponent does not know where George Sheiffley has resided since he deserted his wife as aforesaid, nor does she know where he now is … that during the time the said George Sheiffley lived with his wife he became intoxicated almost every day, so that he was not capable of taking care of his family … that the said Parties while they lived together were for a great part of the time in the same house with this deponent and the said George Sheiffley when he was drunk used very often to beat his wife without any cause and drive her out of doors, and often threatened to kill her.”; Hannah Moyer [Jr.] (signed in German script Hanna M—[?]) states inter alia “that she is of the age of seventeen years, and is the sister of Susannah Sheiffley, and has known George Sheiffley for many years … that she was not present when the Parties to this cause were married.”  Divorced 16 March 1801.  FHL film #1023005, images 504-520 (515).

SHIELDS, Margaret v. John.  Petition of Margaret Shields “of Reading in the County of Berks in the same State [i.e., Pennsylvania],” by her next friend Philip Stribing, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 2 Nov. 1789 and filed that day; married “in April in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty four … at Philadelphia”; grounds: “In the ensuing Fall he put her on board a Vessel telling her they were to go to Carolina but she found the Vessel was bound to Nova Scotia where she was landed and he arrived some time after that after living with her about a Week he abandoned her and went beyond Sea and returned about Eight Months after and stayed with her about one Month when he endeavoured to prevail on her to go on board a Vessel which he said was bound for Ireland but as he was addicted much to strong liquor and had no means of support having sold most of her wearing Apparel and bedding and had before deceived her she was deterred from going on board the said Vessel  Whereupon he on the third Day of October in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty five wilfully and maliciously deserted her and going to some parts beyond Sea to her unknown left her in great distress and want So that she was compelled to return to her Parents at Reading aforesaid where she arrived in the Month of June in the Year of our Lord one thousand and seven hundred and Eighty six and hath remained ever since; that considering herself as entirely and forever deserted and abandoned by her said Husband from whom she hath not heard since his leaving Nova Scotia and from his conduct she has no reason to expect that he will ever return to live with her.”  Petition marked “Sep[t]. 1795 n.b.f.  pa[ge] 63.”  FHL film #1023005, images 521-523 (521).

SHRINER, Philip v. Elizabeth.  Petition of Philip Shriner, “of the township of Newbury in the County of York and Commonwealth aforesaid,” sworn to 10 June 1794 and filed on or before 20 June 1794 when a subpoena was awarded; married “on the thirtyfirst day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty six … [to] a certain Elizabeth SINGHAAS daughter of Casper Singhass of the township of Mountjoy in the County of Lancaster & Commonwealth aforesaid”; [period of cohabitation not stated, but:] “your petitioner had issue by the said Elizabeth his Wife three children (to wit) Catharine[,] Michael and Elizabeth all of whom are since dead”; grounds: “That the said Elizabeth for upwards of twelve months past has voluntarily & perversely forsaken & abandoned the bed of your Petitioner without any reasonable cause. That the said Elizabeth the fifteenth day of April last eloped from the bed & board of your petitioner & without any reasonable cause renounced all matrimonial connection with him from that time since. That the said Elizabeth on her elopement associated & connected herself with a certain Joseph Watkins with whom deponent is informed and verily believes she has lived in a state of adulterous intercourse with since. That the said Elizabeth in the month of May last entered into a second marriage with the said Joseph Watkins & that the said Elizabeth & Joseph have since lived [next eight words careted] & now lives in the County of Northumberland together as man & wife in open & known violation of the primitive marriage vow of the said Elizabeth to your Petitioner. That your petitioner has resided in Pennsylvania since his intermarriage with [interlined word] the said Elizabeth.”  Marriage application of Philip Adam Shriner of Manheim Twp., Lancaster Co., yeoman, and Elizabeth Singhaas of Donegal Twp., same county, dated 1 Feb. 1786 and directed “To any Protestant Minister.”  Certificate (undated): “These are to certify that by Authority of a License dated February the first 1786 John Philip Adam Shreiner of Manheim Township in Lancaster County Yeoman and Elizabeth Singhass of Donegal Township were lawfuly married per me on the Day above mentioned. Witness my Hand and Seal | Henry Muhlenberg | Protestant Minister at Lancaster.” Testimony taken at Northumberland Co. 25 Oct. 1794: Abel Person (signed Abel Pearson) “Doth depose and Say that a woman by the name of Elizabeth Singhaas to this deponents knowledge was married to one Joseph Watkins by David Hammond Esq^r in Turbut Township in May or June last and that he knew them to live together as man and wife in the County & Township aforesaid since there mariage [sic] [¶] Further this deponent Sayeth that he frequantly heard the said Elizabeth say that she was previously married to a Phillip Schriner & liv^d togeather as man and wife in Newbery Township County of York & State of Pennsylvania & further sayeth not.”; Robert Chambers “doth depose & say that he knew Phillip Schriner & Elizabeth his wife both of York County Newbury Township & State of Pennsylvania that he knew the said Elizabeth to have Elop^d from the Bed and board of s^d Phillip in April 1794. [¶] And this deponent further sayeth that he often heard the s^d Elizabeth Declare that she was Daughter of Casper Singhaas of Lancaster County & State of Pennsylvania and further this Deponent sayeth not.”  Affidavit (undated) of David Hammond (signed D. Hammond), who states “That Came before him in the Summer of 1794 a certain Joseph Watkins and Elizabeth Singhaus requesting to be married which he did According to law and further Sayeth not.”  Divorced 9 April 1796.  FLH film #1023005, images 524-559 (541); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), pp. 80-81; also Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 6-7.

SHROCK, Elizabeth v. Samuel.  Petition of Elizabeth Shrock, “being a Citizen of this State and haveing [sic] resided therein for several years last past,” by her next friend William Marley, sworn to at Philadelphia Co. before a justice of the peace 13 Sept. 1804 and filed 14 Sept. 1804 at #401 Sept. Term 1804 (defendant served by proclamation and publication); married “on the Fifteenth day of February One thousand seven hundred and ninety five”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Samuel Shrock without a reasonable cause hath wilfully and Maliciously deserted & absconded himself from her for and during the space of Four Years and upwards, before the day of filing the above Petition or Libel.”  Testimony taken 22 March 1805 on interrogatories: Elizabeth Caves, “of the city of Philadelphia, Widow,” states inter alia that [1] “I have known Elizabeth Shrock since she was born, and Samuel Shrock for twelve or thirteen years. [2] I was not present at their marriage, but they both told me they were married. They lived together as man and wife off and on for three or four years before the year seventeen hundred and ninety nine, and were generally reputed to be man and wife. [3] I was intimate with the Parties, and often visited at their home. Samuel Shrock did not study to provide for his family, but neglected to do so. I was obliged at one time before he last left his [changed from ‘her’; next word careted] wife to take her and her two children and keep them for several months, because he did not provide for them. He loved drink, but he never loved work. [4] Elizabeth was a very industrious [sic], and did every thing in her power to support her husband and family. She always conducted herself towards her husband, so far as I know or have heard, as an affectionate wife. [5] The said Elizabeth and Samuel lived together as man and wife for about four years on and off. He left her several times and returned to her again. At the time he left her last, he left her with two children; one of whom has died since. [6] The said Samuel got no property with his wife at his marriage. She afterwards by her own industry got some furniture, not of much value. When he went away from her [next page] the last time, very little of the furniture was left, and he left her quite destitute. He last left her in the month of September one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine. She came to me on the twelfth day of that month, and her husband went away from Philadelphia eight or ten days after, and has never returned since, so far as I have seen or heard. His wife, the libellant, has lived with me ever since and still lives with me. She was obliged to leave her husbands house, when she came to me, because nothing was left in it, and he was continually drinking night and day. His wife had one letter from him since he went away; which she received upwards of four years ago; but he has not contributed at all to her maintenance. The seventh interrogatory answered in the answer to the sixth [8] She has behaved herself since the departure of her husband prudently, and been sober and industrious.”  Divorced 23 March 1805.  FHL film #1023005, images 560-573 (564).

SHUBERT, Melchior v. Mary.  Petition of Melchior Shubert (signed Malchior Shubert), “of Norwegian Township in the County of Berks, Cooper,” dated and sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 8 Oct. 1802 and filed 10 Oct. 1802 at #86 Dec. Term 1802 (defendant served on 29 Nov. 1802 where “Mary resides near Hereford Township in the County of Berks”); married 30 May 1775; cohabited “from that Time … until some time in the month of April AD 1798”; grounds: “the said Mary not regarding her marriage Vow, did some time in the month of April one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight wilfully and maliciously & without any reasonable cause desert your Petitoner and hath remained absent from him since that time.”  FHL film #1023005, images 574-580 (576).

SHULTZ, Barbara v. John.  Petition “of Barbara Shultz, (formerly Barbara MILHOOF) of the Borough and County of York” (signed with her mark), in the presence of Frederick Youse [elsewhere “Youce”; per the interrogatories, her next friend], dated 21 April 1801 and filed 5 June 1801 at #133 Sept. 1801 (defendant served 28 June 1801, “Mils. 103. to Philadelphia”); married “about Twenty Years ago … by The Rev^d M^r Kurtz a German Cergyman in the Borough of York to a certain John Shultz Stocking-Weaver, then residing in the Borough of York”; cohabited “about four years”; grounds: “That then he left her, and went to his Step-fathers in Freys-town York township removing with him all the property she received from her father, that he continued in Freys-town for about a Year, from thence he went to Abbots Town formerly in the County of York, now the County of Adams, where he has resided wilfully and maliciously absent without a reasonable cause from your Libellant for and during the time and Space of Fifteen Years.”  Testimony taken 18 Dec. 1801 on four interrogatories: Martin Brenisen (signed in German script Martin Breneisen), “of the Borough of York in the State of Pennsylvania aged about Seventy Years,” states “[1] that he knows both libellant and defendant, that he has known John Shultz this thirty Years, and that he has known Barbara Shultz the Libellant for about Twenty Years. [2] that John Shultz the defendant, and Barbara Shultz the Libellant, lived together in the same House, acknowledged themselves Man and Wife and were considered so, by all who knew them. In this way they cohabited three or four years. [3] that without any Reasonable Cause, John Shultz the defendant deserted and absented himself from Barbara Shultz the libellant, taking with him the goods she received from her father. That John Shultz the defendant absented himself from the Libellant, about Sixteen or Seventeen Years ago, and has continued absent from her ever since.”; Capt. John Brenisen (signed John Breneisen), “of the Borough of York and State of Pennsylvania aged Forty Years or thereabouts,” states “[1] That he knew John Shultz the defendant about thirty Years ago, and that he knew the Libellant about Twenty Years since. [2] That Libellant and Defendant lived together and were called and considered Man and Wife. That Libellant and Defendant lived as Man and Wife three or four Years. [3] that John Shultz the defendant deserted and absented himself from Barbara Shultz the Libellant in the Year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty three or the Year following, that John Shultz told the deponent that he would never live with her and that he continued absent from her ever since. [4] that John Shultz the defendant sometime before he left Barbara Shultz the libellant, told the deponent, that he John Shultz was determined to leave Barbara Shultz the libellant, and that tho he [next word careted] the said John Shultz had no reason to complain of his Wife the said Barbara Shultz yet still he was determined to leave his said wife Barbara Shultz the libellant.”; Margaret Brenisen (signed with her mark) states “[1] that she knows both parties, that she has known John Shultz the defendant nearly Thirty five Years, and that she has known Barbara Shultz the libellant about Twenty Years. [2] That about Twenty Years ago, Barbara Shultz the libellant and John Shultz the defendant were accompanied to York town by several persons who had been at the Wedding of Barbara Shultz the libellant and John Shultz the defendant, the Marriage took place at Barbara Shultzs fathers who lived in the Country, that when John Shultz the defendant and Barbara Shultz the libellant came to York they rented and lived sometime in the House of Jacob Rudisele, when they left Jacob Rudisles, they the said Barbara Shultz the Libellant and John Shultz the defendant came and lived with this deponent, they were considered Man and Wife. They lived together as Man and Wife about four Years. [3] That John Shultz the defendant deserted Barbara Shultz the libellant without any reasonable Cause, that he the said John Shultz frequently said she the said Barbara Shultz the libellant, behaved kindly to him, but that he the said John Shultz would not live with her the said Barbara Shultz, that when he John Shultz left Barbara Shultz the libellant he took with him nearly all the property the said Barbara received from her father. That John Shultz the defendant has been absent from Barbara Shultz the Libellant about Sixteen Years. [4] That John Shultz the defendant was extremely cruel to Barbara Shultz the libellant, that when John Shultz the defendant and Barbara Shultz the libellant lived in the same House with this deponent, he the said John Shultz, beat and severely used the said Barbara Shultz without the least provocation.”  Divorced 22 Dec. 1801.  File includes (at image 585) a subpoena issued by the Supreme Court to a John Shultz, dated 21 Jan. 1786 and served 25 March 1786 at York Town (“89 Miles”) to appear 10 April 1786, perhaps in regard to an earlier divorce petition, or this may pertain to some other case.  FHL film #1023005, images 581-599 (598); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), pp. 84-85.

SHULTZ, Elizabeth v. John.  Petition of Elizabeth Shultz (signed with her mark), “late of the Borough of Reading in the County of Berks in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Feltmaker,” by her next friend Isaac Levan, dated at Reading 29 Dec. 1789, sworn to that day before a Berks County common pleas court judge, and filed 25 Feb. 1790; that she “is the daughter of Joseph BARROT formerly of the same Borough aforesaid, that she at the age of Eighteen Years was joined in the holy Bans of Matrimony with the said John Shultz on the Eighteenth day of October last past by the Reverend John William Boss, Pastor of the German Reformed Church in the said Borough”; cohabited “for the Term of seven days”; grounds: “that after that Triad the said John Shultz her husband deserted her and committed the Crime of Adultery with a certain Eve Stohocker and about four weeks since went off with the said Eve from the said County maliciously leaving and absenting himself from your Petitioner [interlined word] he has totally abandoned her without leaving her any Means of Subsistence.”  FHL film #1023005, images 600-605 (603).

SHURTZ — see SCHORTZ

SIDE, Mary v. William.  Petition of Mary Side, by her next friend Parnell Gibbs, sworn to and filed 14 April 1801 at #33 Sept. Term 1801 (served by proclamation and publication); married “in or about the month of June in the Year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and Eighty Eight”; cohabited “from that Time untill the Month of October in the Year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and Ninety Six”; grounds: “that the said William Side from the Twenty sixth day of October in the year last aforesaid hath wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Mary and Such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four years & more without any just or reasonable Cause and yet doth Continue to absent himself from her the said Mary.”  Testimony sworn to 30 Oct. 1801: Leany Kehl (signed with her mark), “of the city of Philadelphia,” states that “she is the Aunt of the Libellant; that the Parties to this Cause have been married about twelve years; and the said William Side in the fall of the year 1796, at which time he had three children by the Libellant and was likely to have a fourth, went away from Philadelphia, leaving his wife and children there without having provided them with any thing to subsist upon; that for several years off and on before the said William left Philadelphia he had neglected to provide the necessaries of Life for his family, and the Libellant was assisted in supporting them by this deponent and another Aunt; That the said William Side did not return to Philadelphia from the time aforesaid untill towards the end of August 1801; when he came to the house of the deponent and told her that he would only stay a few days, that he had left two children [next five words careted] a boy and a girl behind him in Carolina where he came from, that he was not married to their mother, but was to be married to her when he returned; that the said William Side staid in Philadelphia between five and six weeks and then went away again, and did nothing while he was here to the knowledge of this deponent, for his wife and children; And that after the said William Side went away in the year 1796 as aforesaid the Libellant with her children has lived principally with this deponent or her other Aunt beforementioned, supporting herself by her own labor with their assistance, and without receiving any assistance from her husband.”; Andrew Singheison (signed in German script Andrew Singeisen), “of the county of Philadelphia Grocer,” states “that he has known the Parties to this Cause for a number of years past, that the defendant William Side left Philadelphia in the fall of the year 1796 and did not return to the knowledge of this deponent untill the twenty fourth day of August last; that after such return he staid in Philadelphia about five or six weeks and then went away again; that during all the time aforesaid his wife and children remained in Philadelphia, and did not receive any support as this deponent verily believes, from the defendant since the year 1796; that the Libellant has been in want during her husband’s absence, and has been assisted by her relations, and previous to her receiving such assistance, she has been aided by the Overseers of the Poor. And farther this deponent saith not.”  Divorced 23 Dec. 1801.  FHL film #1023005, images 638-648 (642).

SIMONY, Eve v. John Jacob.  Petition “of George Stohler – next Friend of Eve Simony the Wife of John Jacob Simony of Lancaster County in Behalf of the said Eve Simony” (signed with her mark), for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, dated and sworn to before a Lancaster County common pleas court judge on 8 Feb. 1787; [place and date of marriage, and period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said John Jacob Simony hath repeatedly [| (inserted line)] within [blank] last past at the County of Lancaster [|] beat and abused the said Eve without any provocation or justifiable Cause; that she hath been treated with the utmost Indignity by the said John Jacob Simony & that by the Cruel & barbarous Conduct of her said Husband she hath been forced from her home and is obliged to depend upon the Bounty of the Charitable instead of enjoying Part of that Estate which she by many years hard Labour helped to earn. [¶] That the said John Jacob Simony is a Man possessed of a very great Estate. [¶] That as she has no hopes of a Change of Conduct in her Husband she submits to your Honours – the propriety of being divorced from Bed and Board And prays that you will please to direct and order that She may be allowed Alimony and that she may be maintained and supported according to her situation in Life of the Abilities and Estate of her said Husband.”  Marked “9 Jan^y [17]96 n.b.f.  pa[ge]. 23.”  FHL film #1023005, images 779-781 (779); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), p. 1.

SMALLWOOD, Elizabeth v. Thomas.  Petition of Elizabeth Smallwood (signed with her mark), “Wife of Thomas Smallwood late of the Northern Liberties in the County of Philadelphia [next word careted] in State of Pennsylvania Cordwainer,” by her next friend Joseph Craig, dated at Philadelphia 23 March 1796, sworn to that day at the City of Philadelphia before an alderman, and filed 29 March 1796 at #5 Sept. Term 1796 (defendant served by proclamation and publication); married “on the fifth day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven … by the Reverend Frederick Smith a Minister of the Gospel and your Petitioner’s Name before the [next word careted] said marriage was Elizabeth CARTER”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that since their said Marriage the said Thomas Smallwood hath had the venereal disease, which he contracted from some person or persons with whom he committed Adultery; and [next word careted] that the said Thomas Smallwood hath repeatedly committed Adultery in the said State of Pennsylvania with a certain Elizabeth Conser now Elizabeth Snyder the Wife of Charles Snyder in violation of his duty and marriage vows, and the said Thomas Smallwood hath departed into some place or places out of this State.”  Petition marked “2 Jan^y 1801 n.b.f. | N^o 5 Sep. 96.”  FHL film #1023005, images 649-655 (653).

SMITH, Isabella v. Thomas.  Petition of Isabella Smith, by her next friend William Alexander, sworn to before a Philadelphia Co. justice of the peace 29 July 1801 and filed the same day at #215 Sept. Term 1801 (defendant served by proclamation and publication); married Thomas Smith “in the month of May in the year One thousand seven hundred and ninety three … by whom she has now living two children”; cohabited “in the City of Philadelphia until the month of february one thousand seven hundred & ninety eight”; grounds: “when the said Thomas, without any just cause or provocation, deserted your Petitioner and his children and has since said period altogether neglected to provide for them, having resided sometimes in New York & sometimes in Charleston, while your Petitioner [next word careted] has remained in Philadelphia. In addition to the said desertion the said Thomas, both in Charleston & New York has lived in open adultery with women of the most abandoned life, and regardless of all decency as well as of fidelity to your Petitioner.”  Testimony affirmed 17 March 1802 on interrogatories: Thomas Parke, “of the city of Philadelphia Physician,” answers “[1] that he hath known Isabella Smith the Libellant, for six or seven years, but that he is not acquainted with Thomas Smith the Defendant. [2] that the said Parties were generally reputed to be man and wife. [3] that he can say nothing with respect to it [i.e., any acts of adultery] except what is contained in his answer to the fifth Interrogatory. [4] that he can say nothing. [5] that some time in the summer of the year 1799 the Libellant Isabella Smith applied to him to attend her as a Physician, and this Affirmant found that she had the venereal disease in a very high degree; but he cannot say whether or not it was communicated to her by her husband Thomas Smith, tho that was reported by herself & her family [6] that he knows nothing farther material to this Case.”; John Brown, “of the city of Philadelphia Mariner,” “[1] answers that he hath known both the Parties to this Cause about seven or eight years past. [2] that the said Parties lived together to his knowledge as man and wife and were generally reputed to be so. [3] that he can say nothing except what is contained in his answers to the fourth and fifth Interrogatories [4] that in the summer of the year 1800 the defendant Thomas Smith came to the house of this deponent in the city of Philadelphia, near which the Libellant, Isabella Smith, resides, and enquired of this deponent respecting his, the said Thomas Smith’s family; this deponent told him they were now well, tho they had been in a very bad state, and this deponent endeavoured to persuade him to stay with his family; he desired this deponent to go to his family and tell them he had arrived from New York, but while this deponent and the defendant were talking together, the defendant told this deponent that he had been much injured by the venereal disease, which he had caught from a girl in New York whom he called his mistress; but he afterwards said that he could not tell whether he had given it to her or she to him. The deponent asked him whether he had seen his wife when she had been at New York some time before and whether he had slept with her; He answered that he had seen her and slept with her, and that at the time he did so, he had the venereal disorder but could not tell whether he had communicated it to his wife or not. The said Thomas Smith also shared to this deponent that he had the venereal disease at the time they were conversing together, and this deponent begged him not to go to his family. He answered and swore that he would sleep with his wife that night. The next day this deponent asked him whether he had slept with his wife the night before. He said he had, but that she would not let him touch her. Soon after this the said Thomas Smith went away, and never returned to his family to the best of this deponents knowledge; and he told this deponent that he never would return to them. [5] that he cannot say whether or not the said Isabella Smith had the said disease, but he knows that she was very unwell in the summer and fall of the year 1799.”  Divorced 18 March 1802.  FHL film #1023005, images 656-672 (670).

SMITH, Margaret, v. George.  Petition of Margaret Smith, who “has resided for more than five years within this state,” by her next friend Thomas Willis (signed Wills), sworn to before a justice of the peace for Philadelphia County 2 Feb. 1802 and filed 5 Feb. 1802 at #74 March Term 1802 (defendant served personally and by proclamation and publication); married “in the month of June one thousand seven hundred and ninety five”; cohabited “for a long time”; grounds: “ the said George Smith being unmindful of his duty and of his plighted faith as a husband, at various times abandoned his wife maliciously & without cause and particularly in the month of November one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven he wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from her the said Margaret, and such desertion and absence hath persisted in for the term of four years and more without any just or reasonable cause and yet doth continue to absent himself from the said Margaret.”  Testimony taken 8 Dec. 1802 on eight interrogatories: Ann Willis (signed Ann Wills), “of the District of Southwark,” answers “[1] that she is the Mother of the Libellant, Margaret Smith, and has known the defendant since a short time previous to his marriage with the said Margaret, [2] that the said George and Margaret were married in May one thousand seven hundred and ninety five at the house and in the presence of this deponent [3] that the said Margaret Smith has lived with this deponent ever since her marriage, and the said George likewise lived with this deponent until he left his wife in the manner hereafter stated. That the said George was a master of a vessel; but did very little towards the support and maintenance of his wife, as he spent his money at taverns and frequently was intoxicated, and when in that –teration[?] abused and illtreated his wife. That the said Margaret was supported principally by her Father, while her husband lived with her. [4] that the said Margaret always, to the best of this deponents knowledge, behaved as prudent wife ought; and this deponent never saw any thing in her conduct to the contrary. [5] that the said Margaret and George lived together as man and wife about two years and a half; and that they have a daughter, who is now about five years old. [6] that in the month of November one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven the said George Smith mentioned that he would not get a berth in Philadelphia and would go to New York to get one: That he accordingly immediately left Philadelphia for New York, and has not since returned That he left no provision for the support of his wife and child when he went away, nor has he sent any thing for them since that time, but they have been maintained by the said Margaret’s Father: That the said Margaret hath not heard from her husband since his departure to this deponent’s knowledge: That this deponent knows no cause that he had for absenting himself from his Wife. And that he was seen by this deponent [interlined word] in [interlined word(s)] New York about eighteen months after his departure from Philadelphia as this deponent has been informed, but this deponent did not speak to him. [7] that the said George has never returned to his wife since he went away at the time stated in this deponent’s answer to the sixth Interrogatory [8] that the said Margaret hath to the best of this deponents knowledge and belief behaved herself since the departure of her husband modestly and prudently.”; Rachel Morgan answers “[1] that she has known Margaret Smith, the Libellant, since she was a child but knows very little of George Smith [2] that she does not know when the said Parties were married, but they lived together for some time as man and wife, and were generally reputed to be so. [3] that she can say nothing of her own knowledge. [4] that she never saw any thing amiss in the conduct of the said Margaret towards her husband [5] that she cannot recollect how long the said George and Margaret lived together as man and wife: that they have one child, a daughter. [6] that she has very frequently since the marriage of the said Margaret and George been at the house of the said Margarets Father where they both lived: that this deponent was there sometimes for months together, and more or less every week since the marriage of the said George and Margaret, but that she hath not seen the said George there for upwards of five years past, nor heard of his being there and that it seemed to be the opinion of the said Margaret’s family that he had left his wife and did not mean to return to her. [7] that the said George hath not, to the best of her knowledge & belief lived with his wife for upwards of five years past. [8] that the said Margaret hath behaved herself since the departure of her husband modestly and discreetly so far as this deponent knows.”  Divorced 28 Dec. 1802.  FHL film #1023005, images 673-688 (677).

SMITH, Thomas v. Catherine.  Petition of Thomas Smith, “Mariner,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 10 Nov. 1800 and filed 21 Feb. 1801 (note on the subpoena indicates that Catherine lives at the corner of Front and Catherine Sts.); married “on the [blank] day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred & ninty [sic] seven in the County [of] Philadelphia State of Pennsylvania … to a certain Catherine LESHWA[?], late Catherine EWING”; cohabited “from that time untill within the last twelve months”; grounds: “That at the time of contracting the said mariage [sic] the said Catharine was the wife of one John Leshwa and that since the time of contracting the said mariage the said Catharine has totally alienated her affections from your libellant & given herself up to lewd practices, & has since that time had adulterous conversations with different men, & particularly that the said Catharine since that time has had adulterous conversation with one John Love in the County afs^d & that the said Catharine has been guilty of adultery.”  FHL film #1023005, images 689-693 (691).

SNOWDEN, Harriet Ann v. Thomas J.  Petition of Harriet Ann Snowden, by her next friend John Pollard, sworn to before a City of Philadelphia alderman 22 Feb. 1804 and filed the same day at #90 March Term 1804; married “on the twenty fifth day of January in the Year One thousand Eight Hundred”; cohabited “from that time untill the desertion complained of”; grounds: “that the said Thomas J Snowden from the twenty sixth day of January in the year aforesaid untill the present time, wilfully and maliciously hath deserted and absented himself from the Libellant, without any just or reasonable cause and the Same desertion and absence hath continued and persisted in for the space of Four Years and upwards.”  FHL film #1023005, images 694-698 (696).

STAAL, see STAHL/STALL

STADEKORN/STADIKORN, Maria v. Simon.  Petition of Maria Stedicorn (signed Maria Stadekorn), “Wife of Simon Stedicorn of the City of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend Henry Kamarer (signed Henry Kammerer), sworn to (as Maria Stedicorn, but again signed Maria Stadekorn) before a Supreme Court Justice 2 July 1792 and filed 1 Aug. 1792 (subpoena directed “to Simon Stedicorn of the City of Philadelphia Yeoman,” returned not found); married “several years since to the said Simon Stedicorn, to whom she hath behaved herself as became a dutiful Wife”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that he hath nevertheless by cruel and barbarous Treatment endangered her Life and on a Variety of Occasions offered such Indignities to her person as to render her Condition intolerable and Life burthensome, and hath thereby forced her to withdraw from his House and Family; that he hath frequently within the last Year without any Provocation from her abused her in Terms highly gross and menacing, and particularly on the twenty fourth Day of December last, when he damned her for a Whore and a Bitch (as he had often before done) and immediately threw at her in a violent Manner a large Mall ring of Iron, which she narrowly escaped; that about the twenty eighth day of the same Month he several Times used the same Language towards her, at the same time swearing that he would do for her, and immediately seized her by the Throat, and by his outrageous treatment of her did her considerable bodily Injury.”  Petition marked “3 July 1795 n.b.f. | pa[ge]. 126.”  FHL film #1023005, images 721-725 (721).

STAHLY, Jacob v. Barbara.  Petition of Jacob Stahly, “of the Borough of Reading in the County of Berks in the State afsd [i.e., Pennsylvania] Innkeeper,” dated at Reading 14 Aug. 1797, sworn to at Berks County before a judge of the court of common pleas the same day, and filed 17[?] Aug. 1797 at #825 Sept. Term 1797; [marriage place and date, and period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That your Petitioners Wife Barbara has been Guilty of Adultery and the man viz. Jacob Miller of the same place yeoman with whom she was caught in the Act of Adultery was for that Offence (committed with her) convicted by Trial & Sentenced[?] in the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County of Berks on the tenth of August instant & for such Offence is now in the Gaol of the County af[ore]s[ai]d.”  Petition marked “29 Jan^y 1803 n.b.f.”  FHL film #1023005, images 714-718 (717).

STALL/STAAL/STAHL, Margaret v. George.  Petition of Margaret Staal (signed Margaret Stall), by her next friend Frederick Weitzel, sworn to 3 Dec. 1803 and filed 6 Dec. 1803 at #141 Dec. Term 1803 (subpoena left 27 Dec. 1803 “at the House of Mr^s Margaret Heiner, in the said Borough of Reading, it being the usual and last abode of him the said George Staal,” and served on him by proclamation and publication); married “on the first day of May in the Year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight”; cohabited “from that time until November following”; grounds: “That the said George Staal from sometime in the said month of November in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hunded and ninety eight, hath deserted, left, and absented himself from her the said Margaret and such desertion and Absence hath persisted in for the term of four years and more; without any just or reasonable cause, and yet doth continue to absent himself from her the said Margaret.”  Testimony taken 23 Feb. 1805 “at the house of Peter Nagle, Esquire, in the borough of Reading, in the County of Berks” on five interrogatories: John Hiener (signed John Heiner) answers “[1] that his name is John Hiener, that he is between twenty one & twenty two years old, and that he is by employment a hatter. [2] that he well knows Margaret Stahl the Libellant George Stahl the Respondent in this cause. [3] that Margaret Stahl the libellant and George Stahl and the Respondent were commonly understood and reputed to be man and wife. [4] that he knows, that George Stahl the respondent, did after he and the said Margaret Stahl, were reputed to be man & wife, desert, abscond & abandon her, his said wife, that this deponent thinks this was about seven years ago, that this deponent does not know for what Cause. [5] that he does not know any thing further pertinent in this cause, except that this deponent believes, that the said Respondent George Stahl is not with the limits and Jurisdiction of this State, but believes, he is somewhere in the western territories, that his reason for this belief is, that about two years ago, when he, this deponent was at Meadville, he understood, that the said George Stahl, the Respondent was at Fort Wayne; that he hath not heard of him since then, but verily believes, that the said George Stahl is still in that Country.”; George Replier (signed J.G. Repplier) answers “[1] that his name is George Replier, that he is between thirty five & thirty six years of Age, and by employment a Storekeeper. [2] that he well knows the Libellant Margaret Stahl and Respondent George Stahl. [3] that he understood that the said George Stahl & Margaret Stahl were man & wife, that they were reputed to be so, and that he often heard them address each other by the names of husband & wife. [4] that the said respondent George Stahl, did between six or seven years ago, desert his said wife Margaret, and this since their Marriage, that this deponent believes, the said George Stahl accepted a Commission in the Army of the United States. that he does not know, for what cause, he, the said George Stahl deserted his said wife. [5] that he does not exactly know, where the said George Stahl now resides, but believes, from various reports, that he is [changed from ‘was,’ or vice-versa] in the Western territories, but cannot say, that he is there now, that he knows nothing further pertinent in this Cause or any thing beneficial to the libellant.”; Andrew Kepner answers “[1] that his name is Andrew Kepner, of the Age of thirty one years, and by employment a butcher. [2] that he well knows Margaret Stahl the Libellant and George Stahl the respondent. [3] that the said Margaret Stahl & the said George Stahl were commonly understood & reputed to be man & wife. [3] That he thinks, the said George Stahl, left his said wife Margaret about eight years ago, since their Intermarriage, but this deponent does not know for what cause. [5] That he does not believe, that the said George Stahl is in this State or within the limits thereof, that about one year & ten months ago, when this deponent, together with a certain Peter Rapp, were in the State of Ohio, at a place called Williamsport, he, this deponent heard, that the said George Stahl, was again married, and the said George Stahl had left Williamsport for some place, the name of which, this deponent does not now recollect, that this deponent heard at Williamsport, the said George Stahl had married a Girl in the neighbourhood of Williamsport and had gone with her from that place.”; Henry Betz answers “[1] that his name is Henry Betz, of the Age of thirty two years, and by employment a Conveyancer. [2] that he knows Margaret Stahl the libellant and George Stahl the respondent. [3] that he understood, the said Libellant Margaret Stahl & George Stahl the Respondent were man & wife, & that the said George Stahl told this deponent, in Philadelphia, that he was married, that he thinks this was the day after they were married, and further said, he would not have married the said Margaret, if he had not been afraid, that General Brodhead would have shot him if he had not married the said Margaret. [4] that the said George Stahl, absconded from his said Wife or went off, about seven Years ago, to the best of this deponent’s knowledge; that he, the said George Stahl went with the Army, that this was since their Intermarriage, and that this deponent cannot assign any other reason or cause why he left his wife, nor does this deponent know of any other reason. [5] that to the best of this deponents belief, the said George Stahl, is not within the limits and Jurisdiction of this State, that he cannot exactly say where the said George Stahl resides, but believes, he is in the Western Country in the Army, and that this deponent knows nothing further pertinent in this Cause.”; Henry Reeser (signed in German script Heinrich Rieser) answers “[1] that his name is Henry Reeser, of the Age of thirty eight years, and by employment a Sadler. [2] that he knows Margaret Stahl the Libellant and George Stahl the respondent. [3] that the said George Stahl, since his Intermarriage with his wife and Margaret Stahl were always reputed to be man & wife. [4] that the said George Stahl, since his Intermariage with the Libellant Margaret Stahl, deserted her about seven years ago, but that this deponent does not know for what Cause. [5] That he does not know nor believe, that the said George Stahl is within the limits of this State, that in truth, he does not know where he is or where he resides, nor does he know any thing further pertinent in this Cause.”; Peter Shoemaker (signed P. Shoemaker) answers “[1] that his name is Peter Shoemaker, of the Age of thirty nine years, and by employment a farmer, but late a Captain in the Service of the United States. [2] that he knows the parties in this Cause, the Libellant as well as the Respondent. [3] that he understood that the said George Stahl & the said Margaret were man & wife, that both parties told this deponent so; that either in the year 1798 or 1799, he this deponent met the said George Stahl in the Streets of the City of Philadelphia & that he then told this deponent he was married to the said Margaret. [4] That about seven years ago to the best of his knowledge and since his Mariage, the said George Stahl left the said Margaret, that the said George Stahl was an Officer in the United States Army & went to the Western Country, and that to the best of his deponent knowledge, the said George Stahl, has not been with his said wife Margaret since that time. [5] that to the best of his knowledge, he does not believe that the said George Stahl is within this State; that about four years ago, this deponent understood, that the said George Stahl was either at fort Wayne or at Detroit. That in the fall of the year 1799, this deponent went from Reading to Pittsburgh, that at Pittsburgh, he understood, the said George Stahl had lately passed himself there for a single and unmarried man, that at Pittsburgh, he actually paid his addresses to a young Lady, a Miss Sample. That he, this deponent was much surprized to hear this, knowing that the said George Stahl was a married man, that at a public Ball, he this deponent asked the said Miss Sample, whether the said George Stahl, had passed or attempted to pass himself with her for a single man, that the said Miss Sample replied, he had. That at this time, the deponent saw, the mother of the said George Stahl at Pittsburgh, then on her way to Kentucky, who told this deponent that she was sorry to hear of the Conduct of her Son George, towards his wife Margaret, in passing himself at Pittsburgh for a single man.”; James Bell answers [1] that his name is James Bell, of the Age of about thirty two years & by employment a Storekeeper. [2] that he knows Margaret Stahl & George Stahl. [3] that he understood that the said Margaret Stahl & the said George Stahl were man & wife, & this from both parties. [4] that the said George Stahl was in the habit of purchasing Goods from this deponent, that the thirteenth day of January, in the year 1798, was the last time he got goods from this deponent, and that shortly after this time, he, the said George Stahl absconded from this place & from his wife, that this deponent does not know, for what reason, unless it was, that he was an Officer in the Army. [5] that in a Conversation he had with the said George after his Marriage with the said Margaret this deponent told the said George Stahl, that he thought he was wrong to get married, the said George Stahl, replied he could not help it, – That this deponent does not know, where the said George Stahl now resides, but understands, that he is somewhere in the Western Country.”; Frederick Weitzell (signed Fredrick Weitzel) answers “[1] that his name is Frederick Weitzell, of the age of thirty four years, and by employment a weaver. [2] that he knows the parties, Libellant & Respondent in this Cause. [3] That he knows, that the said George Stahl & Margaret Stahl were joined in matrimony in Philadelphia by a M^r Baker, this deponent believes it was by Hilary Baker, deceased, that this deponent was present at the mariage ceremony. [4] that the said George Stahl deserted his wife Margaret about seven years ago next summer, but that he does not know for what Cause or what Reason, that the said Margaret desired her husband to take her along with him, but that the said George Stahl told her, she should only stay at home, that he would soon return again, but that he hath not been with her since that time. [5] That to the best of his knowledge, the said George Stahl is not in this State, that he understands he is in the Western Territory, that about three years ago, he, this deponent understood, that he [sic] said George Stahl had married in the said Country, that he heard this often, and that the said George Stahl had a wife & children there; but that this deponent does not know, where the said George Stahl is at this time.”  Divorced 12 March 1805.  FHL film #1023003, images 289-291 (289), and #1023005, images 699-713, 719-720.

STEDMAN, Juliet v. Alexander.  Petition of Juliet Stedman for divorce from bed & board, by her next friend Godfrey Ashman, sworn to at Philadelphia before a City of Philadelphia alderman 10 June 1802 and filed 17 June 1802 at #210 Sept. Term 1802; married “in the year 1792”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Alexander not regarding his marriage vow hath at divers times treated your petitioner with in the most cruel and barbarous manner and hath offered such violence and indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burthensome.”  FHL film #1023005, images 726-730 (728).

STEEL/STEELE – see STILL

STEENBERGH (STEINBERG on interrogatories), Eliza S. v. Jacob.  Petition of Eliza S. Steenbergh, by her next friend Spencer H Cone, sworn to before a justice of the peace 24 March 1812 and apparently filed on 24 March 1812, when the petition was read in open court and a subpoena awarded, at #86 March Term 1812 (defendant served by proclamation); married “on the twenty eighth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eleven”; cohabited “from that time until within these few days”; grounds: “that the said Jacob, in violation of his marriage vow has for a considerable time past given himself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery.”  Testimony (all undated) on interrogatories: Isaac Cathrall, “of the City of Philadelphia, Practitioner of Physick, aged forty eight years and upwards,” answers “[1] that he has known the Libellant for about eighteen months past, & the Respondent from his infancy. [2] that he was not present at the marriage of the said parties. That the Respondent called upon this affirmant and requested him to visit his wife, at the house of the Respondents father, where she then was. Affirmant did so, and was there introduced to the Libellant. She was spoken of to affirmant by Respondent as his wife, and so treated by his family. Affirmants attended on her in the line of his profession for some time after, and had conversations with the Respondent, relative to the nature of her disease. [3] that he was called upon and Physician to visit the Libellant for the first time about the 12^th day of July Eighteen hundred and eleven. She then lived with the parents of the Respondent. Affirmant found her in the early state of pregnancy and afflicted with venereal ulcers, and treated her complaint as such. During affirmants attendance on her he had conversations with the Respondent, from them Affirmant was led to believe that the Respondent was afflicted with the venereal disease, and he prescribed to him under this belief, directing him to take mercury, which directions he for some time persued. In the course of these visits, Affirmant was led to believe from the conversations & confessions of the Respondent to him, that he had communicated venereal affection to his wife. That some months after, affirmant was first called to visit the Libellant, he was requested to attend her in her laying in. That he did attend her on that occasion, and delivered her of a still born child, which affirmant thinks was probably produced, by the mercurial treatment she had undergone. [4] affirmant refers for his answer, to what he has said in his answer to the second interrogatory [5] this affirmant cannot answer. [6] that the Respondent has been twice under his care, for the venereal disease, since the separation between him and the Libellant. That a very few days after their seperation, the mother of the Libellant, accompanied by her son & the Libellant called on affirmant to ascertain & discover whether he thought the Libellant has been affected [sic] with the Venereal Complaint since her confinement, and also to know whether at that time, she was free from it. Affirmant did in consequence of this make the necessary enquiries, and to guard against all risks administered mercury to her, until it slightly affected her mouth. He believes that he was right in doing what he then advised, from what they had told him of the conduct of the Respondent, but more especially, from what he has since seen and known of the Respondent, and the diseased condition of his system, proceeding as affirmant believes from his looseness and irregularities.”; Thomas Mahon, “of the City of Philadelphia aged nineteen years and upwards,” answers “[1] that he has no acquaintance with the Libellant, that he has known the Respondent for about two or three years. [2] that within a twelve-month he heard the Respondent say he was married, but did not hear him say to whom. [3] cannot answer [4] cannot answer [5] that early in the last autumn the Respondent in conversation with this deponent mentioned to him, that his wife had left him, that a difference had taken place between them owing to his complaining to her of her staying out late in the evenings & coming home by herself, and that he had offered to attend on her on those occasions, if she would tell him where she went to. That she took offence at what he said, & had left him. Afterwards on the day of the last general election in Philadelphia Deponent again saw the Respondent. He then talked to Deponent about entering into the army, and said he thought he had the venereal disease on him. That after his wife left him, he visited a young woman, who Deponent understood to be of loose character with whom he [next two words careted] said he had criminal Connection, and that he was in the habit of going to see her. [6] that he knows no other matter or thing that will be useful to the Libellant further than he has before deposed unto.” Frances Van Houter (signed with her mark), “ of the City of Philadelphia aged twenty two years and upwards,” answers “[1] that she has no acquaintance with the Libellant, that she has known the Respondent since the Month of April last, when her acquaintance with him commenced. [2] that during her acquaintance with him, she understood from him, that he was married to a lay whose maiden name was CONE. [3] that she knows nothing personally of her own knowledge of Eliza Steinberg the Libellant, but has heard the Respondent say that she was affected with the venerial disease during the time of her marriage, & that she had communicated it to him. [4] that she has heard the Respondent say that he had lived with the Libellant as his wife [5] that the Respondent was in the habit of keeping company with Common Prostitutes at the time of his marriage with the Libellant. That she has seen him in such company in the City of Philadelphia very often. That since her acquaintance with him, she has had criminal connection with him on many occasions, and she knows that the Respondent had, had criminal intercourse with a certain other woman of the name of Rebecca Steel– anterior to this deponents connection with him. That from the conversation and manner of the Respondent he appeared to be of [next word careted] a very loose and dissipated character, and from his information to this deponent she learnt, he had much intercourse with women of the Town before her knowledge of him commenced, & had suffered in his health very much from such intercourse. Deponent further saith that to her knowledge he is at present much addicted to the association & intercourse of loose women, and that those habits appear ap to have much increased upon him. [6] that she doth not know of any other matter or thing material to the Libellant, further than she has deposed unto.” Divorced [unlawfully?] 1 April 1813.  FHL film #1023005, images 733-740 (733).

STEINMETZ, Henry v. Elizabeth.  Petition of Henry Steinmetz “of the City of Philadelphia Merchant,” sworn to at Philadelphia County before a judge of the Court of Common Pleas 11 July 1791 and filed 1 Aug. 1791 (defendant served personally); married “on the twentieth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & eighty seven”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Elizabeth in Violation of her Marriage vow hath for a considerable tine past, at least from the month of August in the year One Thousand seven hundred & ninety given herself up to Adulterous practices and has been guilty of the Crime of Adultery.”  Answer of Elizabeth Steinmetz dated 12 Sept. 1791, sworn to before a City of Philadelphia alderman and filed 15 Sept. 1791: “This Defendant saving and reserving to herself all Manner of Benefit and Advantage of Exception to the manifest Untruths Incertainties and Imperfections in the said Libel contained for answer thereto or unto so much thereof as this Defendant is advised is [sic; in] any way material for her to make Answer unto, she answereth and saith that true it is the said Henry Steinmetz on the Twentieth Day of February in the Year of or Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Seven was lawfully joined in Marriage with this Defendant from which time she this Defendant from all Manner of Adultery or Incontinency or the least Suspicion thereof hath lived exempt innocent and free and she this Defendant doth expressly deny the Charge of adultery stated against her in the Libel of the said Henry And this Defendant further saith that altho by the Laws of God as well as by [next page] by the mutual vows plighted to each other they were bound to that Chastity which ought to be inseparable from the Marriage State yet the said Henry in Violation of his Marriage Vow did on [next two words careted] or about the Sixth Day of March in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Seven commit Adultery with a certain Catharine Stevens.  and did continue to commit Adultery with the said Catharine at divers Days and Times between the said Sixth Day – Day of March and the Sixth Day of August in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred & Eighty Seven all which Matters and Things this Defendant is ready to aver maintain and prove as this honorable Court shall award and humbly pleadeth the same in Bar to the Libel of the said Henry Steinmetz and therefore prays to be hence dismissed”; signed Eliz^a Steinmetz.  No witness testimony; interrogatories to be administered on the part of the Respondent include the following: “3. Do know of any improper Connection between Henry Steinmetz the Libellant and a certain Black Wrench commonly called Catharine Stevens since a reconciliation that took place between him the said Henry Steinmetz and his Wife Elizabeth Steinmetz t the Island of S^t Barthelemews? Did the said Henry Steinmetz at any time and when cohabit and live in a State of Adultery with the said Catharine Stevens and hath the said Henry Steinmetz acknowledged to you that he did live in such State of Adultery with the said Catharine Stevens and when? Relate your Knowledge fully and at large. ]¶] 4  Do you know that the said Elizabeth Steinmetz went an unusual Time with any of her Children and with which and how long and whether the said Henry Steinmetz took Notice of the same and was acquainted therewith?”  FHL film #1023005, images 741-753 (746, 753).

STENMAN, John v. Maria Christina.  Petition of John Stenman (signed Johan Stenman) of Philadelphia Co., sworn to in open Court in Philadelphia County 27 Sept. 1798 and filed 28 Sept. 1798 (defendant served by proclamation and publication); married “on the fifth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & ninety four”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Maria Christina without a reasonable Cause hath committed adultery at different times for the space of one year past with a certain Peter Lund[?].”  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 11 June 1798 on four interrogatories: Christan Hekler [sic] (signed with his mark), answers “[1] that he is about twenty eight years of age, that he lives in the District of Southwark in the County of Philadelphia and is a Labourer [2] that he has known the libellant about six months and that he has known the respondent about eleven months [3, as to their marriage] he knows nothing relative thereto. [4] that in the month of July last he and his wife Elizabeth went to live in Christian Street in a house with the respondent and remained there fourteen days during which time every morning when the deponent got up in the morning to go to his labour he passed through the room where the respondent slept and and the [next word careted] saw a certain Peter Lund in bed with the respondent every time he passed through said room. That afterwards in the month of September last the Deponent & his s^s wife lived in a house in Camptown in the County of Philadelphia that the said Respondent & the said Peter Lund lived in the same house and slept in the same room [next word careted] in which this deponent & his Wife did for fourteen nights  that the respondent & the said Peter Lund each of said nights undressed themselves and went to bed together & slept together  that in the latter end of the same month September [next two words careted] this deponent went to live in a house with Mary Donseller in Penn Street in the County aforesaid, that the respondent and the said Peter Lund lived there also and slept in the same Room that the Deponent & his wife did, that the respondent & said Peter Lund slept together in the same bed for two weeks or more, that the Deponent saw said Peter Lund lying on the respondent at one time and f they being in bed together & from what he the Deponent then saw he verily believes the said Peter had Criminal Connection with the respondent at that time.– the Deponent further saith that during the whole of the time he lived in the houses aforesaid with the respondent and the said Peter Lund the respondent pretended the said Peter Lund was her husband. & that the respondent at this time lives in the District of Southwark in the County of Philadelphia”; Elizabeth Hekler (signed with her mark) answers “[1] that she is about twenty eight years of Age and that she is the Wife of Christian Hekler and lives with him in the District of Southwark in the County of Philadelphia. [2] that she has known the Libellant six months or more and that she has known the Respondent about eleven Months [3] that about the latter end of July last the respondent told her that she was married to one John Stenman who was a Seaman & that he was then gone on a Voyage to Holland, and that one Peter Lund who then lived with her was her Sweet hart & she intended to marry him. [4] that in the month of July last she with [next word careted] & her husband Christian Hekler lived in a house with the respondent in Christian Street in the County of Philadelphia for fourteen days  that during that time the Deponent frequently saw the said Peter Lund & the respondent in bed together & they were undressed & did sleep together. That afterward in the month of September last the Respondent and the said Peter Lund lived in the same house with the Deponent & her husband in Camptown in the County of aforesaid and slept in the same room that the Deponent & her husband did for fourteen nights, that the respondent & the said Peter Lund each of said nights undressed & went to bed together & slept together, that in the latter end of the same month September this Deponent and her s^d husband lived in a house with Mary Donseller in Penn Street in the County aforesaid, that the respondent and the said Peter Lund lived in the same house and slept in the same room that this deponent & her husband did, that the respondent & the said Peter Lund slept in one bed in said house for two weeks or more, that during the time the Deponent has known the respondent & the said Peter they lived together & cohabited as though they had been actually married. The respondent now lives in Southwark in the County of Philadelphia”; Mary Donseller (signed with her mark), answers “[1] that she is about thirty seven years of Age & that she keeps a boarding house in the District of Southwark in the County of Philadelphia [2] that she has known the Libellant about one year and six months and that she has known the respondent about one year. [3] that about Nine months ago the respondent told the Deponent she was Married to the Libellant John Stunman[?] and the Deponent further saith that the Libellant & respondent have been reputed to be man & wife from the time this Deponent first knew the Libellant to this time [4] that the respondent told her that Peter Lund was her Sweet hart & that she was to be married to him that they the said respondent & Peter Lund lived in the Deponents house together & slept in the same room that Christian Hekler & his wife did & tht there waswere but two beds in the room. That the respondent now lives in the District of Southwark in the County of Philadelphia.”  Divorced 10 Dec. 1799.  FHL film #1023005, images 754-772 (760).

STILL (also STEEL and STEELE), Mary v. William.  Petition “of Mary Steele Wife of William Steele of Germantown in the County of Philadelphia (signed in German script Maria Still), for a divorce from bed & board, by her next friend William Haverstick, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 10 March 1788 and filed 9 April 1788; married “upwards of twenty years since”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: the s^d William unmindful of his Marriage Vow soon after the s^d intermarriage gave himself up [written over ‘to’] to drink and thereby became greatly intoxicated in which Course of Life he hath continued to live ever since and in addition thereto hath at divers Times since the s^d Intermarriage in an angry manner threatened to take away the Life of your Petitioner with Knives, Clubs and other dangerous Weapons that he hath lately upon various occasions [next thirteen words careted] and particularly on or about the first Day of January now last past without any sufficient Provocation beat and abused your Petitioner in such a cruel and barbarous manner as to endanger her Life hath turned her out of Doors and offered such other Indignaties [sic] to her person as to render her Condition intolerable and life burthensome and thereby forced her to withdraw from his House and Family.”  Answer filed 9 July 1788 “ of William Steel to the Libel of his Wife Mary Steel [¶] Humbly sheweth [¶] That all & every the suggestions contained in the Libel af^d of his s^d Wife, excepting the Marriage therein set forth , are untrue & groundless. That this Answerer hath of late been crippled by the cutting off of the sinews of his hand by the nephew of his said Wife, so that he is unable to earn his livelihood & is in danger of suffering the most extreme Want & Misery unless relieved by the Township, altho his s^d Wife hath in her possession two Houses & other property belonging to her sufficient to relieve the necessities of this Answerer & the Family, from the Use & Enjoyment of all which his s^d Wife hath driven & expelled him by Force. And that this is the true & only Cause of his s^d Wife’s unjust petition for a Divorce, in Order that She may be supported in her unnatural Conduct towards him. [¶] Wherefore he prays that her s^d Libel may be hence dismissed with Costs and that such further proceedings may be had therein as to Justice doth pertain &c.”  Tried, jury finds in favor of Mary.  Divorced (as Steele) 2 Jan. 1789.  FHL film #1023005, images 731-732 (731), 785-789.

STITELER/STITLAR, Jacob v. Mary. ; Petition of Jacob Stitlar (signed Jacob Stiteler [same as on the cover]), “of Chester County,” sworn to (as Jacob Stitlear) before “the president of the common pleas in & for the second district of Pennsylvania” 31 May 1799 and filed 12 Aug. 1799 (defendant served by publication and proclamation in Philadelphia, by proclamation in the Borough of Lancaster, and by leaving a copy of the alias subpoena “at the house of the Widdow Litle in the Borough of Lancaster it being the usual and last abode of the said Mary Stitler”); married “on the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety five … a certain Mary CARNAHAN of the County aforesaid”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That since the said intermarriage The said Mary hath behaved herself in avery Lewd and Indecent manner and hath commited Adultery with a certain Robert Harkins.”  [No filed testimony.]  Divorced 27 March 1800.  FHL film #1023005, images 773-778 (775).

STONER, Henry v. Magdalena.  Petition of Henry Stoner (signed in German script Heinrich St—r[?]), “of Lower Paxton Township in the County of Dauphin Farmer,” affirmed before a Supreme Court Justice 25 Feb. 1793 and filed 27 Feb. 1793; married “on the third Daay of May last [1792] … with a certain Magdalen STOLER of Heidelberg Township in the said County of Dauphin Single-Woman”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That at the Time of the said Intermarriage your petitioner concluded the said Magdalen to be a virtuous Woman. [¶] That since your petitioners intermarriage with the said Magdalen, she hath committed Adultery with a certain Jacob Kline.”  Petition marked “7 Sep. [17]95 abated by pltfs death | pa[ge].160.”  FHL film #1023005, images 782-784 (782); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), p. 5.

STOUT, Richard v. Rachel.  Petition of Richard Stout (signed with his mark), “of the Township of Frankford in the County of Philadelphia, … being a Citizen of this State & having resided herein for Several years previous to this filing this Petition,” sworn to at Philadelphia before a Supreme Court Justice 9 Dec. 1799 and filed 18 Dec. 1799 at #7 March Term 1800; married “on or about the first day of March 1798”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Rachel hath committed Adultery with a person to him unknown she also hath without any reasonable Cause seperated & continued seperate from him for one year & more.”  Affidavit: “Philadelphia County SS | The voluntary examination of Rachael MYERS of the County aforesaid and Township of the Northern Liberties singlewoman taken on Oath before William Coats One of the Justices of the Peace in and for the County of Philadelphia this Eleventh Day of December 1799 [¶] Who saith that she is now withchild and that the said Child is likely to be Born a Bastard and be Chargeable to the Township of the Northern Liberties and that James Coyle now of the City of Philadelphia Yeoman is the father of the said Child [next line] taken and Subscribed the Day and Year Abovesaid. [signed with her mark, W^m Coats subscribing] | P.S. She says she is about seven months gone withchild | True Copy of the Original lod^d in my Office March 21^st 1800 [signed] W^m Coats [added certification:] I do Certify that the above named Rachael Myers has since the Date of the above, acknowledged before the subscriber that at the Time she took the above Oath she was the wife of Richard Stout and had lived Separate and apart from her Husband before she had any Acquaintance with James Boyle [sic].” Testimony taken 22 March 1800 on five interrogatories: George Strouse (signed with his mark) answers “[1] that he is a Cooper and of the age of fifty years and upwards [2] that he knows both the Parties [3] that he was present and saw the Parties to this cause joined in marriage about two years ago [4] that the Parties lived after their marriage in the same house with him in Frankfort in Philadelphia County, and the respondent frequently staid out till eleven or twelve O’Clock at night in company with young men, and playing cards with them. That one Sunday morning in the month of March 1798 (in which the Parties were married) this deponent and the libellant having gone out in sea—h search of water cresses found [next three words careted] on their return the respondent with a man known by the name of Lem Davis jumping off from some hay which was put in a closet under the stairs on which it appeared they had been laying together. That about five weeks after the Parties were married, the libellant having gone for a short time to his father’s in Salem New Jersey on some business, the respondent left the house of this deponent pretending that her husband had deserted her. She went alone, and the libellant returned shortly afterwards to the house of this deponent where he has lived ever since, but the respondent has never returned to him. And that this deponent understands and believes that the respondent lives at this time in the house of one Michael Sweyer near Harrougate in the said county.” Rachel Strouse (signed with her mark) answers “[1] that she is the wife of George Straus and of the age of forty three years. [2] that she knows both the libellant and respondent. [3] that she was present at the marriage of the Parties in the month of March 1798 [4] that very soon after the Parties were married, she heard the respondent declare that she was not pleased with her marriage, that she only married for devilment and would certainly cuchold her husband. That this deponent having brought a carpenter to mend a table for her one evening was followed by the respondent into the garret where the table stood: After the carpenter had examined the table the respondent took him by the shoulder and pushed him backwards upon a bed in which she usually slept, and she fell on it after him, and desired this deponent several times to go down stairs, which she at length did taking the candle with her. As this deponent was going down stairs she heard one of them say ‘A slice of a cut loaf is not missed, now is the time’, and they remained there a considerable time together after this deponent left them. About five weeks after the Parties were married the respondent left her husband and has never returned  That she now lives at the house of Michael Sweyer near Harrowgate; and this deponent saw her about three months ago and found that she was with child [5] that she has related all that she recollects material to this cause.”   Divorced 1 Sept. 1800.  FHL film #1023005, images 790-807 (801).

STRUNK, Susannah v. George.  Petition of Susannah Strunk (signed with her mark), “Wife of George Strunk of Germantown township in the County of Philadelphia Carter, late Susannah FRIEND,” by her next friend George Lutz, sworn to at Philadelphia County before an Associate Justice of the Court of Common Pleas 3 Dec. 1802 and filed 8 Dec. 1802 at #1 March 1803 (defendant purportedly served personally); married “on the fifth day of August in the Year of our Lord Seventeen hundred and ninety Eight”; [period of cohabitation not expressly stated]; grounds: “the said George shortly after their said Marriage did wilfully and maliciously desert and absent himself from her without any reasonable Cause, and for more than four years now last past hath continued wilfully and maliciously to desert and absent himself from her with[careted:]out any reasonable cause and hath wholly omitted and refused to find her a home or furnish [sic] or his infant children, with food and sustenance or necessities of life for the same period.”  FHL film #1023005, images 808-813 (811).

SUTTER, Elizabeth v. James.  Petition of Elizabeth Sutter for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend William Ogden, sworn to 1 Sept. 1794 and filed 8 Sept. 1794 (Defendant purportedly served personally in the City of Philadelphia 12 Sept. 1794); married “about twenty Years ago”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said James for some Years after their said Marriage conducted himself in an affectionate manner towards her  But for about three Years last past he has given himself up to the imtemperate use of spirituous Liquors and for the said space of about three Years has totally neglected to provide for the Support of your petitioner and his two Children a Son and Daughter  That your petitioner and the said Children by reason of the said misconduct of her Husband have become entirely dependent on her own Mother Elizabeth Whitton for her maintenance and the support of her Children – That her Husband altho’ he has not for the space of time aforesaid contributed anything towards the maintenance of your petitioner and his said Children but [next word careted] maliciously abandoned them – Whereby they altogether rely for their subsistance on her said Mother – yet he is in the practice of coming to the House of her Mother under pretext of being and visiting your petitioner & his said Children but being in a State of habitual intoxication – When in the House of his said Mother in Law his Conduct to his Mother in Law your petitioner and the said Children has often been such that your petitioner’s Mother has frequently been obliged to apply to a Justice of the peace to have him bound under Recognizance to preserve the Peace and be of good behaviour That when he comes to see your petitioner he is almost always drunk his Language is extremely abusive and often threatens to beat her – Your petitioner has so repeatedly experienced his cruel and barbarous abuse and indignities for the last Twelve Months past that her Condition is rendered intolerable and her Life absolutely burthensome That being so neglected abandoned and ill treated by her said Husband your petitioner is fearful of experiencing still greater distress from the abusive and insolent Behaviour he practices towards her Mother – For her Mother who is now about Seventy Years of Age and infirm has repeatedly informed your petitioner – if your petitioner’s Husband could not be kept from her House or change his Conduct when there – She from necessity would be constrained to break up housekeeping by which means your petitioner and her Children would be rendered still more miserable than they are.”  Answer of James Sutter sworn to and filed 14 April 1795: “That the Allegations and Assertions contained in the said Libel and Petition are untrue and unfounded – That he hath never treated the said Libellant with any cruel indecent or improper Conduct, nor hath he used any kind of Severity towards her or her Mother Elizabeth Whitton as stated in the said Libel, except what arose from a natural warmth of Temper, by his being precluded an opportunity of visiting his Wife and Children to whom he was attached by the Ties of Nature and by barring of Doors and other similar Conduct on the Part of the said Elizabeth Whitton he was prevented a Possibility of seeing them [¶] That the Suggestion of his not having contributed to their Support is equally unfounded as he not only always did the same while in his Power and that a great part of the Furniture and Repairs to [next page] to the House was procured and made at his Expence, for the Proof of which he can produce sufficient Vouchers – That since the Charge laid in the said Libel, he went to Sea and had the Misfortune of being cast away, and lose all his Property, except the Cloathing upon him – That since that unfortunate Circumstance he hath been treated with uncommon Indifference and Contempt – That James Whitton the Husband of the said Elizabeth Whitton by his last Will devised his Estate to the said Elizabeth Whitton and Elizabeth Sutter for and during the Terms of their natural lives with Remainder in fee to Margaret Sutter the Daughter of your Respondent – That this Estate as condirably [sic] sufficient for their Maintenance and Support – That as his Losses and LossesMisfortunes were unavoidable owing to the Act of God, and arising from no Impropriety of Conduct in himself he presumes they cannot reasonably or legally be imputed to him as a Crime, For all which all which Reasons, he prays your Honours that the said Libel and Petition may be dismissed.”  Petition marked “9 Ap^l 1796 abated by Defent^ts death  pa[ge].128.”  FHL film #1023005, images 814-826 (820).

SWEETMAN, Bridget v. Richard.  Petition for Alimony [missing].  Agreement “Sur Amicable suit for Alimony” filed 28 Sept. 1786: “It is agreed that the Court appoint three persons who or any two are to report what sums it is just & reasonable the defendant should allow & weekly pay to the defendant Complainant, for her [changed from ‘his’] support & maintenance so long as their seperation from bed & board shall continue; and that Judgment be rendered for the payment of such sum, agreeable to the direction of the act of Assembly.”  [Three referees appointed; no further papers.]  FHL film #1023005, images 827-829.

TALBERT, Thomas v. Elizabeth.  Petition of Captain Thomas Talbert, of the City of Philadephia, sworn to before the Mayor 15 Jan. 1803 and filed that day at #23 March Term 1803 (defendant served personally that day); married in the City of Philadelphia 11 June 1795 “to a certain Elizabeth RAMSEY”; cohabited until about 21 Oct. 1800; grounds: “she hath since the said [21 Oct. 1800] abandoned and given herself up to lewd practices and adulterous conversation and intercourse with lewd men, and particularly with a certain Samuel Higons has committed open and avowed adultery, and that she the said Elizabeth hath also been guilty of adultery with divers other persons to your libellant unknown, from all of which it is evident she the said Elizabeth has been guilty of adultery, And your Libellant further sheweth that the said Elizabeth … on or about [11 Sept. 1802] was delivered of a child born of her the said Elizabeth’s body when your Libellant was was not cohabited nor been in company with her the said Elizabeth within twelve months before the said [11 Sept. 1802] nor had been in the United States of America during all the said time of one year next immediately before [11 Sept. 1802], from which it is evident she the said Elizabeth has been guilty of Adultery.”  FHL film #1023006, images 5-9 (7).

TALLMAN, Mary v. Samuel.  Petition of Mary Tallman (signed with her mark) attested to in Philadelphia Co. 13 Sept. and filed 14 Sept. 1804 at #400 Sept. Term 1804 (subpoena is marked “in the Workhouse”); married about 19 years ago; cohabited until the autumn of 1802; grounds: “That the said Samuel from the said Autumn of the year 1802 / from which time he the said Samuel & your Libellant have lived separate & apart from bed & board & long before totally alienated his affections from your Libellant & had given himself up to Lewd practices & to the having adulterous conversation & intercourse with lewd women.”  Testimony taken 21 Dec. 1804: David Christie, of the District of Southwark, physician, states that the Respondent had had venereal disease twice, that “he told the deponent that he had caught it by frolicking with lewd women, … that the Libellant was absent from her husband when he had the disorder last, she having gone to Albany, and been absent a considerable time,” and “that the Respondent has said in his hearing that no man need have a better woman for a wife than he has, and he never gave any hint of his suspecting her to be unchaste.”  Divorced 23 March, entered 3 April, and filed 15 Sept. 1805.  FHL film #1023006, images 10-24 (21).

TAYLOR, Sarah v. Robert.  Petition of Sarah Taylor (signed with her mark), “wife of Robert Taylor of the City of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Richard Webster (signed with his mark), sworn to before the Chief Justice at Philadelphia 24 Aug. 1797 and filed the same day at #959 Sept. Term 1797; married “several years since”; grounds: “he hath on a variety of occasions by cruel and barberous treatment endangered her life and offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and life burthensome, and thereby forced her to withdraw from his House and Family.”  Marked “21 feby. 1803 n.b.f.”  FHL film #1023006, images 25-32 (27).

THOMAS, Esther v. Lewis.  Petition of Esther Thomas (signed Ester Tomas) of the City of Philadelphia, “Wife of Lewis Thomas of the same place, House Carpenter,” by her next friend George F. Alberti, sworn to before the Chief Justice 5 Aug. 1801 and filed that day at #239 Sept. Term 1801 (subpoena, served personally on Lewis 24 Aug. 1801, states that he “lives up the Marshal Road about 2 miles over Schuylkill”); [marriage place and date and length of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “within these two years last past has conducted himself in a very improper manner, so as to evidence a total want of Respect and Affection for your Libellant, that among other Instances of Misconduct has frequently had criminal Intercourse with other Women as he has himself acknowledged.”  Testimony affirmed 18 Sept. 1801: Nathan Rhoads (signed Nathan Roads), of Blockley Twp., Philadelphia Co., farmer, states that he “has known Lewis Thomas since he was a child, that the said Parties lived together for several years,” that Lewis had last fall been confined to his bed for several weeks due to venereal disease, and “when he was in liquor boasted to this Affirmant of his (the said Lewis’s) having had connection with other women than his wife ….”  Testimony taken 24 Dec. 1801: Louisa Faut (signed with her mark), of the City of Philadelphia, states “that she is the Mother of Esther Thomas, the Libellant, that the said Esther Thomas has lived with this deponent about two years past, having refused to live with her husband on account of his cruel behaviour to her, … [after telling] him that she could forgive him every thing but his having connection with other women, from whom he had caught the venereal disorder,” to which he had confessed in the deponent’s presence.  Divorced 25 March 1802.  FHL film #1023006, images 33-43 (35).

THOMPSON, Jane v. William.  Petition of Jane Thompson, living in Salsbury Twp., Lancaster Co., by her next friend George McDill, dated 17 Jan., sworn to 24 Jan., and filed 28 Jan. 1803 at #58 March Term 1803 (defendant served personally 9 March 1803 by Thomas Martin of Shippensburg “at ‘Miles’ Settlement, on french Creek either in the County of Crawford or Erie, Deponent does not know which,” and again on 15 Aug. 1803 “at his house in [blank] County”; married “nine years since”; grounds: he “immediately removed her from her Fathers to the Western Territory, and there banished [her] from his bed & board and did then take up with Another Woman with whom he has Cohabited since without the least cause Alleg’d against me by him I then went to the State of Kentucky where I had some Friends He then follow’d me and wish’d to put me to Sale which frighten’d me very much & obig’d me to leave that State and come to Lancaster County to my Father[’]s … there is no future prospect of him & me ever living in harmony together again.”  Testimony apparently all taken at the home of Thomas Foster, Esq., in Erie, on or about 24 Aug. 1803: William Cochran, of Union Twp., Erie Co., yeoman, aged 36, states that he “has lived near and known Defendant for about four years last past, and that his wife and he have not lived together during any part of that time,” that the defendant “resides in Union Township in the County of Erie with a woman formerly called Susan Tuttle now Susan McHenry … [who] has lived with Defendant a part of the time and a part of the time at other places since Deponent has known them, that said Sarah has two children, one whereof is upwards of three years old, and the other about seventeen or eighteen months old, that the general opinion of the neighbourhood is that Defendant is the father of the said Children”; Samuel Hutchin (signed with his mark), of Union Twp., farmer, aged 19, [same testimony as William Cochran except that he “has lived near and known Defendant for upwards of two years last past”]; Wheaton West (signed with his mark), of Waterford Twp., aged 24, states that “he has known Defendant for upwards of four years last past,” “that he has not lately been as Defendants house but that about three years ago Sarah Tuttle since called Sarah McHenry was living with and had lived with [next word careted] him for a year previous to that time” and “that Sarah McHenry mentioned above has two children of whom Defendant is reputed to be the father”; John Willey, of Waterford Twp., farmer, aged 32, states “that Defendant resides in Union township in the County of Erie, aforesaid, and that a woman formerly called Sarah Tuttle now Sarah McHenry has resided with him generally from the month of January or February [1799] to the present time … that he has lived near and known Defendant from the Spring of the year [1797], that about the time deponents acquaintance with him commenced his wife left him and that they have not lived together any part of the time since that period … that Sarah Tuttle or Sarah McHenry above mentioned has two children one about three years old and the other about eighteen months old, and that the general opinion of the country is that Defendant is the father of those children”; Wilson Smith, of the town of Waterford, innkeeper, aged 32, states “that Defendant resides in Union township in the County aforesaid, but deponent never was in his house,” that he has known him about four years, and “that a certain Sarah Tuttle or Sarah McHenry has two children one about three years old and the other upwards of a year old, of whom Defendant is reputed to be the father”; James Anderson, of the town of Erie, Esquire, aged 37, states “that he never saw Libellant, but has been acquainted with Defendant from the Summer of the year [1800] to the present time … that Defendant resides in Union township in the County of Erie aforesaid, that in the summer of the year [1800] a certain Sarah Tuttle since called Sarah McHenry lived with him … [and] that when he (Deponent) was first at Defendants house, Sarah Tuttle had a young child who of whom Deponent has frequently been told Defendant was the father, that the house of Defendant was a small one & that there was but one bed in it.”   FHL film #1023006, images 44-64 (62); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 17-19.

THOMSON/THOMSON, Sarah v. James, of Chester Co., yeoman.  Petition of Sarah Thompson (signed Sarah Thomson), “wife of James Thompson late of Chester County yeoman,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend John James, sworn to 12 June and filed 6 Sept. 1790; married 28 Feb. 1768; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: he “hath been a tyrant, and tormentor to your libellant, and by his cruel and barbarous treatment endangered her life in divers instances, and by offering such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable, hath forced her to withdraw and live separate and apart from her said husband. In particular … that after the celebration of said marriage the said James Thompson gave himself up to the drinking of spirituous liquors, and by habits of intoxication hath become incapable of managing his estate and taking care of his family as a husband ought to do. That in these fits of intoxication and at all times, particularly in the year 1786, he beat the libellant in a cruel and unmerciful manner and by his threats and outrageous conduct put her in fear of her Life. That he treated her from time to time with foul and indecent and abusive language and with all manner of indignity, and on or about the     day of     1787, beat her with his fist in her face, pulled her on the floor by the hair of her head and committed other outrages against her. That the said James Thomas hath been duly convicted of the last mentioned cruel beating of your petitioner and was, inter alia, sentenced to give security for his good behaviour for one year, which is now elapsed, and he hath threatened your petitioner so, that she is apprehensive that he intends to do her some mischief. All of which conduct, appears to proceed from malice and rooted hatred against the libellant, from all which it is evident that the said libellant cannot safely cohabit with the said James Thompson. The Libellant further humbly sheweth that at her said Marriage she was seized of a considerable real Estate a large part of which hath been sold during the life of the said James Thompson to pay the debts contracted by him.”  Defendant’s answer (signed James Thomson), dated and filed 24 Sept. 1790, states that he offered on or about 6 June to receive and cohabit with Sarah, which she “did then refuse and still doth refuse and instead of accepting the said offer doth under color of an illegal order of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Chester keep the possession of the Real Estate of the said James to her sole and seperate use utterly preventing the said James for possessing and enjoying the said real estate … [and] that all times since the aforesaid offer he the said James hath been ready and willing to receive the said Sarah Thompson as the Wife of him the said James Thompson and to cohabit with her again and in every respect whatever to use her as a good Husband ought to do.”  Divorced (from bed & board) 24 Sept. 1791, consideration of alimony postponed.  FHL film #1023006, images 65-79 (75).

TIFFIN, Martha v. James.  Petition of Martha Tiffin of the City of Philadelphia for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Henry Heatly, sworn to before an alderman of the City of Philadelphia 6 Feb. and filed 8 Feb. 1802 at #72 March Term 1802; married 7 Jan. 1796; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: he, “in 21 day of October in the year [1799] and at divers other days and times since the said aforesaid in violation of his marriage vow hath maliciously abandoned his family and hath turned his wife your petitioner out of doors and by cruel & barbarous treatment hath endangered her life And hath offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burthensome.”  Answer of James Tiffin filed 6 Dec. 1802 admits the marriage but denies all other allegations.  Testimony taken 27 Dec. 1802: Elizabeth Palmer states that she had known Martha “since 178_ at which time she was the wife of Vincent M. PELOSI and lived next Door to this Deponent in Markett street and has been in the habits of Intimacy with her ever since. … in the Month of October 1799 M^r Tiffin applied to this Deponent to take Lodgings for M^rs Tiffin and promised that he would pay regularly Whatever Deponent Charged – But Deponent never Received More than 20 Dollars from him … that M^rs Tiffin Lodged with her for the space of 4 Months ….”  Agreement filed 14 Sept. 1803 grants Martha $300 annually in alimony, and provides for the improvement of her property in New Jersey and for her to release her interest in the house at 70 S. 2nd Street in Philadelphia.  Divorced (from bed & board) 31 Dec. 1802; alimony awarded 14 Sept. 1803 as per agreement.  [Alimony apparently went unpaid, resulting in further proceedings and testimony, including the following:]  Affidavit of Henry Ward, sworn to 21 March and filed 24 March 1807, “that James Tiffin and Martha Tiffin his wife after having been separated some time again came & resided together at the house in which the said James Tiffin then dwelt in South Second Street Philadelphia That they thus resided together in apparent harmony and mutual good will from about the Sixth of September 1806 until sometime in October 1806 when the said James Tiffin became involved in difficulties & executions were laid on his effects. Shortly after which – say about a week or ten days – the said Martha left the dwelling & house & the said M^r Tiffin That the said James Tiffin about the first of March 1807 went to sea on a trading voyage partly on his own account & partly on account of others who have employed him as agent.”  Further testimony sworn to 31 Dec. 1808 [not summarized here].  Testimony taken 23 Feb. 1809 and filed 16 March 1809: John B. Pous, of the city of Philadelphia, hatter, states “that he served his time to the hatter’s business with the above defendt James Tiffin and resided in the same house with him until 1804 when the defendant was married & after that time ceased to lodge at M^r Tiffin’s but was every day there at his shop & working for him … in 1806 that they came to live together again – Mrs Tiffin was then at a house in New Jersey opposite the City & the deponent with a black boy named Charles Merritt who was then bound to M^r Tiffin were sent over by him to bring Mrs Tiffin’s clothes & effects … the deponent did not eat in the house, but he saw Mrs Tiffin almost every hour in the day managing & directing it as mistress – & they seemed to agree together very well for a length of time – The deponent remembers that Mr. Tiffin stopped payment & the Sheriff came to the house to sieze his goods or shut up the Store on the 14^th of October 1806, shortly after which Mrs Tiffin left the house, but Mr. Tiffen continued to live in the house tho he longer did business in the store until the monthfirst of March following when he went to the West Indies … [On cross-examination:] Deponent says – He is a Frenchman came to this Country in the year 1794[?] – had very few opportunities of seeing M^r & M^rs Tiffin together except when obliged to go up to the Dining Room to get the key of the Till to Give change to a custome – that when M^rs Tiffin returned to the House in second street at the sollicitation of M^r Tiffin to this Deponents knowledge said Tiffin was Deeply involved in Debt in consequence of which the Sheriff Levied an Execution – shup up the Shop and seized and sold all the Furniture.”  Testimony sworn to at Philadelphia 13 March 1809: John OSullivan (Defendant’s witness), states that he “has no acquaintance with the Plaintiff until he saw her on Wednesday last, That he then called upon her at her house in Jersey, near the ferry opposite to Arch Street … [and that] She told this deponent she was desirous of selling her property in Jersey and going to Philadelphia to live.”  FHL film #1023006, images 80-128 (99); see also Tiffin v. Tiffin, 2 Binney 202 (Pa. 1809) (alimony proceeding).

TITUS, Willianne v. John.  Petition of Willianne Titus, by her next friend Absalom Thomas; appeal at #94 Dec. Term 1815 (interrogatories only).  FHL film #1023006, images 131-132.

TORBERT, Samuel v. Beulah E.  Petition of Samuel Torbert, “Practitioner in Physick,” sworn to in Bucks Co. 4 Feb. and filed on or before 6 Feb. 1796 when a subpoena was allowed (served personally on defendant by John Torbet [signed John Torbart] of Newtown, Bucks Co., 15 Feb. 1796, and alias subpoena served personally by the Sheriff of Bucks Co. in July 1796); [marriage place and date not stated]; grounds: “That Beulah E. Torbert late Beulah E. TWINING the Wife of Your Petitioner on [25 Dec. 1791] did willfully and maliciously desert and absent herself from the House and Society of your Petitioner without any reasonable cause and so absent from the House and Society of your said Petitioner, ever since without any reasonable cause as aforesaid hath remained.”  Testimony taken 8 Sept. 1796 (affirmed; not signed): Joseph Thornton of Newtown, aged 30 years and upwards, states that he has known the Plaintiff “from his Infancy to this time and also [the Defendant], … that the Parties … lived together as Husband & Wife at Newtown in Bucks County, … that he never knew or heard that the [Plaintiff] was guilty of Misbehaviour or maltreated his Wife, … that [the Defendant] absented herself from her Husband … about Christmas in the year [1791] … that after the Desertion, the [Plaintiff] remained in the same place but Beulah E Torbert retired to the House of her late father, a small distance from the beforementioned Town, where she still dwells …; John Torbert, of Newtown, innkeeper, aged 30 years and upwards, “saith the same in as full and ample a manner as is deposed & affirmed to by Joseph Thornton”; John Kinsay and John Roney, “each of Newtown in the County of Bucks, the one Millwright, the other Farmer, aged Thirty years & upwards, … make the same answers to the Character of the Plaintiff, as stated in the declaration of Joseph Thornton,” but otherwise are without knowledge except that Kinsey acted as mediator between the parties, but the Defendant “would not accede” to the proposed terms of reconciliation.  FHL film #1023006, images 129-130 & 133-150 (138).

TRENCHARD, Mary v. James.  First petition of Mary Trenchard, by her next friend Nicholas Collin, sworn to at Philadelphia 2 March 1795 and filed the same day; second petition, again by next friend Nicholas Collin, sworn to 17 Sept. 1796 and filed 2 Feb. 1797; and third petition, handwritten by next friend Nicholas Collin, sworn to and filed 21 Feb. 1797 at #288 March Term 1797 (subpoena addressed to “James Trenchard of the City of Philadelphia Engraver”); married on or about 10 Oct. 1777; cohabited “for several years”; grounds: desertion.  Testimony taken at Philadelphia 11 April 1795: Hannah Summers (signed with her mark), wife of Andrew Summers, states “that she is of the age of fifty two years, but of no par follows nole[?] particular employment or engagement for a living … that she knows both the parties … and has known them about five years,” that about August 1790 “the Libellant came to the Deponents house for the purpose of boarding with her, in consequence of the agreement of this deponent with M^r John Mease … that at the expiration of the year the Libellant removed to the House a[d]joining occupied by M^rs Mary Tenick … the Libellant after a twelve months residence with M^rs Tenick removed to Kensington where she has since lived supporting herself by the profits of her Industry, pursuing for this purpose the occupation of penciling chintras”; Sophia Fislar states “that she is of the age of thirty years but pursues no particular employment to obtain a living,” that during the four years that the Respondent has deserted the Libellant, “she has received assistance from the family in which this deponent resides,” and that the deponent has found her “in no respects addicted to liquor” as her husband claimed. Testimony taken 19 Sept. 1795: John Mease states “that he is about fifty years of age … That the Parties have lived seperate at least three years, [that he] knows of no other cause [for the desertion] than James Trenchard disliking her … That the father of Mary Trenchard having formerly been in this deponents employ as a Master of Ship, occasioned this deponents becoming acquainted with his family, and knowing the tender manner in which Mary Trenchard had been brought up, he was induced to pay particular attention to her in her distress occasioned by her husbands illusing her,” that articles of separation had been executed, which the Defendant did not comply with, that the “deponent assisted Mary Trenchard in procuring Lodgings at M^r. Summers where she resided some time, Some time afterward she removed to Kensington where this deponent believes she still resides … [and that] James Trenchard has been in Europe since the articles were drawn and has since returned.” Testimony taken 22 Dec. 1796 (affirmed): James Hewson states “that he reside in Kensington where he pursues the business of calico Printer, that he has understood from general report that James Trenchard the Defendant has deserted Mary Trenchard the Libellant for four years and upwards and has left her entirely to herthe charity of her friends and her own industry for support this report is notorious. Upwards of four years ago Mary Trenchard applied to his affirmant for employment, and employed her in penciling chinese[?] and calicoes in which employment she has continued ever since excepting during the vacancies which the Winter Season necessarily —[?] in the business ….” Catharine Holden, wife of Jeremiah Holden, pilot, states that “Mary Trenchard is frequently at this Deponents house and has sometimes resided there a fortnight at a time, this Depoent has at these times supported her and made her presents of Articles of cloathing knowing her to be necessitous….”  Divorced 1 April 1797.  FHL film #1023006, images 151-186 (176, 179, 183).

TRUMAN, John v. Emilia.  Petition of John Truman of Sadsbury Twp., Chester Co., farmer, affirmed at Philadelphia 14 Jan. 1801 and filed the same day at #39 March Term 1801 (defendant served personally by the Sheriff of Chester Co. in 1801); married on or about 1 June 1795; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Emelia without reasonable Cause, hath willfully and malitiously [sic] deserted him.”  Testimony taken 28 Nov. 1801 at the house of Amos Slaymaker in Lancaster Co. (affirmed): William Brinton states that “I am upwards of 40 years of age I am by Occupation a Husbandman,” that “[i]n About Seven Months after the Marriage in Conversation I had with the Respondent in the presence of the Libellant, she told me she thought it was Right for her to Leave him, she said this Conclusion was from an Apprehension (which she had told her Husband the Libellant) that she could not live Happy with him, the Respondent left the Libellant for the first time about two or three four or five Weeks after Marriage … I believe the Respondent lives at her Fathers house in Chester County … [t]he Respondent Charged the Libellant with Impotency, which charge the s^d Libellant did not admit[,] he said in about two weeks after they were married he found her the Respondent to be dejected and Appeared to be under Uneasiness of mind and in Much Trouble[,] the libellant said that he was not sencible, that his Conduct was such as to produce this Uneasiness of mind, at the time this Conversation took place which was about 7 months after Marriage, the Respondent Appeared to me, to be in some degree deranged, the first time the Respondent Left the Libellant she was absent from him 9 or 10 Months, before she returned she was delivered of a Child, I had a second interview with the Respondent together with the Libellant and his Father at her Fathers house, with an Intention of promoting a Reunion, I then found a Disposition in both the Libellant and Respondent, to live together again, and she the Respondent acknoledged [sic] that she was mistaken in Divers of those assertions Relating to her Husbands Conduct towards her, I never heard of her altering her mind with respect to her willingness to live with her Husband untill she became Insane, after she Returned to her Husband the Libellant, I had 3^d Conference with her at her Husbands House, she then seemed not to be Disposed to Acknoledge the whole of her Charges against her Husband, to be false, she Appeared then to be in a weak and Unsettled State of Mind, She resided with her Husband after her Return Six or Eight weeks”; Hazael Walker (signed Ashahel Walker) states that “I am between 54 and 55 years of age I follow Farming,” that “I have known John Truman the Libellant 9 years and Emilia Truman the Respondent 5 years, [that] I was present at the Marriage between the Libellant and Respondent upwards of 4 Years ago, I know that the Respondent Left the Libellant some few weeks after they were married the Respondent now Lives with her Father in Chester County in the State of Pennsylvania, I went to visit the Respondent some short time after she Left the Libellant, and advised her to Return, she said she never would, but in about 3 or 4 Months did Return to Live with the Libellant, Sometime after how long I cant ascertain the Respondent Returned back to her Fathers, where she has Lived ever since, I cant tell at what time the Respondent Left the Libellant but I think the first time was upwards of 4 years ago”; Ann Walker states that “I am between 49 and 50 years of age, I am the wife of Hazael Walker yeoman, [that] I have been acquainted with John Truman the Libellant at least 20 years, and with Emelia Truman the Respondent about 5 years, [that] I was present when John Truman the Libellant and Emelia Truman the Respondent were joined in Matrimony according to the Rules of the Quaker Society, I don’t Remember the exact time, [that] A few weeks after the Libellant and Respondent were marryed, the Respondent Left her said Husband, I don’t know whether it was with the Consent of the Husband or not, She was Absent from him 4 or 5 Months, then Returned back to her Husband again, and from Report she some short time afterwards returned to her Fathers a second time, and has ever since Lived with him, I don’t know the particular time at which the Respondent Seperated from the Libellant, I understand that the Respondent Resides at her Fathers in Chester County in the State of Pennsylvania, I heard the Respondent say she would not return back to her Husband [next five words careted] likewise I heard her say because he was not Like another man, I cant say that this was given as a reason for her Leaving him, [that] the Respondent in Less than a year after the Marriage was Delivered of A child, I know nothing more Beneficial to the Libellant.” Jno. McDaniel (signed J John M^cDonnal) states that “I am 62 years of age by Trade a Cordwainer,” that “I have known the Libellant from a Boy and the Respondent 5 or 6 years, [that] I was present and saw the Libellant and Respondent joined in Matrimony, [that] From common Report the Respondent hath committed a wilfull and malicious Desertion and Absence from the said Libellant, She was absent about 6 Months then Returned and lived with the Libellant 4 or 5 weeks, and then left the Libellant a Second time, and went to Live with her Father, it is upwards of 5 years since the Respondent first Left the Libellant, the Respondent now resides in the County of Chester in the State of Pennsylvania, the Reasons I understood from the Respondents parents, in her presence, was that the Libellant was insufficient to Act the part of a man towards a woman, they the parents also Stated in the presents [sic] of the Libellant and Respondent, that the Libellant Lay two nights beside her, after [next word careted] the time of marriage without touching her, the Libellant made answer it was at her Request”; Isaac Taylor states that “I am of the age of Sixty one years … my Imployment is that of a Farmer,” that “I was present and saw John Truman and Emelia Truman joined joined in Matrimony According to the Rules of the people Called Quakers, on the Sixth day of January 1796Month & first day of the Month 1796 [sic] [that] I believe that Emelia Truman Absented herself from her husband John Truman better than four years ago I do not know whether her desertion was wilfull and Malicious or not but from Common Report She went away of her Own Accord at that time She was Absent Some Weeks, but cant fix any particular time, she then Returned and afterwards in about Six or eight weeks, Returned to her Fathers house again, and has ever since been absent from him, the said Respondent now Resides at her Fathers at her Fathers house in the Township of Sadsbury in the County of Chester and State of Pennsylvania, I heard Emelia the Respondent say, as a Reason for her leaving her Husband, the Libellant, that she was first pleased with the prospect, but it did not turn out according to her Expectation [that] After the second time the Respondent returned to her Fathers house, I saw her and she was in a State of Derangement, I know that the Respondent was disowned by the Society of Quakers on account of her Conduct towards the said Libellant”; Thomas Whitson, Sr., states that “I am turned of 76 years of age, my Employment is that of a Farmer … I have known the Libellant 10 years, and the Respondent 5 or 6 years [that] I was present and saw the Libellant and Respondent joined in Matrimony on the first day of the Sixth Month 1796 [that] I know that the Respondent left the Libellant and was absent from him 3 or 4 Months, then Returned and Lived with the Libellant, not more than a month and then Left him a Second time, and hath not Lived with him since, it is better than 4 years since the Respondent Left the Libellant the Second time, the respondent Resides with her Father in the Township of Sadsbury in the County of Chester and State of Pennsylvania[,] the Reason of this Respondent leaving the Libellant was nothing more as I am informed, than that he was deficient as a man, I always Understood that he was kind to her”; Mary Moore states that “I am 49 years of age the Wife of John Moore Sen^r Miller … I have known the Libellant 15 years and the Respondent 6 years … I was not present at the time the Marriage took place [, that] I heard the Respondent say she thought it was best to Run away from the Libellant, accordingly she said she did, this Conversation was at, the Respondents Fathers house after she Left the Libellant, it is better than 5 years since she Left the Libellant first, the Respondent was kindly invited to in my presence to Return and Live with her Husband, she s^d She would not nor ever intended, I afterwards saw her at her Husbands, returned to Live with him, better than 4 years ago I understood she Left her Husband the Libellant the Second time, and has ever since Lived with her Father in the County of Chester in the State of Pennsylvania, the Reasons the Respondent gave for Leaving her Husband the Libellant was he did not use her as other Men did their Wives, for he was not able, and likewise he was not like another man [that] The Respondent had a Child in less than one year after marryage.”   FHL film #1023006, images 187-217 (189).

TURNER, George v. Isabella.  Petition of George Turner (signed G Turner) dated 3 Aug. 1797, sworn to that day before an alderman of the City of Philadelphia, and filed [date not given, but subpoena awarded 4 Aug. 1797] at #674 Sept. Term 1797 (Defendant served by proclamation at Philadelphia and by publication); married “on or about 22^d day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty two … Isabella CHEVALIER of Philadelphia [next two words careted] City and County in this State by the reverend William White”; [period of cohabitation not expressly stated]; grounds: “That in the month of [blank] in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & ninety five or ninety six your Libellant’s said Wife without any just cause deserted & wholly abandoned him & hath removed to [blank] & there hath married an other Man or liveth with the said man in a State of Adultery as your Libellant is able to prove.”  Petition marked “29 Jan^y 1803 n. b. f.”  FHL film #1023006, images 218-224 (222).

UPDEGRAVE, Hannah v. Joseph.  Petition of Hannah Updegrave, “of the County of Montgomery,” by her next friend Jacob Fronefield, affirmed in Montgomery County 15 Feb. 1797 and filed 21 Feb. 1797 at #288 March Term 1797; married “on the fourth Day of September Anno Domini 1791 at the County aforesaid … to a certain Joseph Updegrave of the County aforesaid Yeoman”; cohabited “for about one year”; grounds: “that aboutmore than four years last past the said Joseph forgeting [sic] the Duty he owed to the Libellant withdrew his Affection from her without any reasonable cause but his own evil minded Disposition and did frequently beat and abuse and often threatened her Life all which your Libellant endured in hopes of his reformation & Amendment: But that the said Joseph still neglecting the Duty he owed to the Libellant on or about the thirtieth Day of September [year careted] AD 1792 did wilfully and maliciously desert & absent himself from the Libellant and has ever since continued absent from her & from the time last aforesaid hath not contributed in the least towards the Support of your Libellant as by his marrage [sic] vow he is bound to do.”  Testimony affirmed in Montgomery County 12 Feb. 1798: Maria Fronfield (signed Marya Fronefield) answers as to Interrogatories 1 and 2 (only) “that she is well acquainted with Hannah Updegrave the Plaintiff and Joseph Upderave [sic] the Defendant in the above Suit, that they were married on the fourth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety one before Anthony Heght Minister of the Gospel, that they lived together about one year, during which time the said Joseph was frequently intoxicated with strong drink, and often beat and abused the said Hannah his wife, and he deserted her in December one thousand seven hundred and ninety two, leaving nothing for her support, and has ever since, and yet does, live seperate and apart from her providing nothing for her maintenance. And that he the said Joseph Deserted the said Hannah his wife without any Just cause as this Affirmant knows or believes.”;  Michael Davis answers as to Interrogatory 3 “that he [interlined word] delivered a Copy and read the Original allias Subpœna to Joseph Updegrave the Defendant in the above Suit, more than fifteen days before the return thereof, and that the s^d Joseph after the Service of the said Subpoena made answer that he did not care a Damn about his wife”;  John Pugh, Esq., answers as to Interrogatory 4 “that he served the Pluries Subpœna of divorce upon Joseph Updegrove the Defendant more than fifteen days before the return thereof, and that since the service and before the return of the said writ, he was the said Joseph Updegrave who said he did not intend to appear in the above Suit.”  Divorced 28 March 1798.  FHL film #1023006, images 226-250 (243).

VALLON, Lewis C. v. Catherine.  Petition of Lewis C. Vallon, “French Master of the City of Philadelphia,” sworn to before an alderman 19 June 1805 and filed 21 June 1805 at #167 Sept. Term 1805; married “on the twenty ninth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety three … Catharine URQUHART his present wife”; cohabited “until the thirtieth of April in the year eighteen hundred and five”; grounds: “the said Catherine in violation of her marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given herself up to adulterous practices, and been guilty of adultery. . . to wit during the months of February and March, during the greater part of which months your petitioner was confined to his chambers by a fit of severe illness, in the year last aforesaid, at which period as well as before and since the said Catherine was repeatedly and your petitioner believes habitually and almost daily in the practice of adultery with a certain man called Joe or Joseph Jwyble, to wit on the first day of March in the year last aforesaid at Philadelphia county, with whom on the said thirtieth day of April in the year last mentioned the said Catherine eloped from your petitioners bed and board, and has since never been seen by nor her place of residence known to your petitioner, who has understood and believes that the said Catherine hath accompanied the said Joe or Joseph Jwyble to New York or Boston and hath lived with him during several weeks now last past in open and scandalous adultery.”  Testimony sworn to 9 Dec. 1805 and filed 23 Dec. 1805: Priscilla Read (signed with her mark) “declares and says – that she lived in the family of the said M^r and M^rs Vallon four years during which time the said Lewis behaved to the said Catherine his wife as a kind and affectionate husband That sometime in the winter of 1804.5. the said Lewis was confined to his chamber several weeks by indisposition during which time a certain young man who before had been in the practice of coming privately and without the said Lewis’ knowledge to visit M^rs Vallon, came, during the said Lewis’ said indisposition and eat, drank and slept in the house of the said parties without the said Lewis’ knowledge that M^rs Vallon during M^r Vallon’s illness slept with him as usual in his chamber up two pair ofstairs, and the said young man always slept up one pair of stairs, in a small room, wherein the said deponent has repeatedly seen the said Catharine and the said young man in bed together this deponent has heard the said Caherine, embracing and kissing the said young man at the same time, say to him she loved him, and that M^r Vallon was an old Frenchman during all this time the said M^r Vallon never left his room up two pair ofstairs as aforesaid, where this deponant waited upon him was constantly going backwards and forwards and believes the said M^r Vallon knew nothing of the intercourse below stairs between his wife and the said young man [¶] x On her cross examination the said Pricilla [sic] further swears that the young man mentioned in her deposition did not come to see M^r Vallon never came when M^r Vallon was down stairs. Being asked how she came in the room when M^rs Vallon and the young man were in bed together she says her business called her and M^rs[?] Vallon did not mind dep^t”  Divorced 23 Dec. 1805.FHL film #1023006, images 252-261 (257).

VISINIER, Nicholas v. Sophia.  Petition of Nicholas Visinier, “of the City of Philad^a Merchant,” dated at Philadelphia 21 Feb. 1803, sworn to there before the Mayor of Philadelphia on the same date, and filed 22 Feb. 1803 at #124 March Term 1803; married “on the Thirtieth Day of May anno Domini one thousand seven hundred & ninety three”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Sophia in violation of her marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given herself up to a adulterous practices and been guilty of Adultery particularly with a certain Louis Labille with whom she now lives and cohabits in the town of Alexandria in the State of Virginia.”  FHL film #1023006, images 276-281 (279).

VON DER SLOOT (also VONDERSLOTH/VANDERSLOTH), Frederick Wilhelm v. Anna Margareth.  Petition of Frederick Wilhelm Vondersloth (signed Fridrick Wilhelm von der Sloot), “of Northampton County and State aforesaid [i.e., Pennsylvania],” sworn to in Northampton County before a justice of the Court of Common Pleas on 18 Aug. 1791 and filed on or before 5 Sept. 1791 (when read) (copy of subpoena “left at Jacob Reads in Hattfield Township, Mont[gomer]^y County where the Defend^t lives”); married “on or about the tenth day of July in the Year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and Eighty four … Anna Margareth RIEDT his present Wife”; cohabited “from that time until the sixth day of January in the year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and eighty five”; grounds: “the said Anna Margaret [blank space] from the sixth day of January in the year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and eighty five in violation of her marriage vows hath alienated her affection from your Libellant, And that the said Anna Margaret [blank space] on the sixth day of January in the same year withdrew herself from the house in which they lived and willfully and maliciously deserted and absented herself from your Petitioner without any reasonable cause and hath ever since continued so to do, by withdrawing herself to the House of her Father in Hadfield Township in the County of Montgomery in the said Commonwealth, and other places to Your Petitioner unknown. [¶] Your Libellant therefore expressly charging the said Anna Margaret [blank space] with willfull and malicious desertion and absence from him without reasonable cause for the space of Six Years and upwards since their intermarriage.”  Testimony taken at Upper Hanover Twp., Montgomery Co., 17 Jan. 1792 on five interrogatories: George Heilig (signed in German script), “of the Township & County aforesaid, aged fifty five Years and upwards,” answers “[1] that hed [sic] did know the said F. Wilhelm Vandersloth about Seven Years ago and upwards, and likewise she the said Anna Margareth Vandersloth also, [2] but of their intermarriage he cannot say when or were [sic] or by whom they were married [¶; 3] he says that they lived & cohabited together as Man & Wife for about Six Months as Man & Wife, to his knowledge [¶; 4] how long they are separated & apart he can not relate to his knowledge, and further the Deponent said not”; Andrew Graeber Sen^r (signed in German script Andreas Greber), “of the Township & County afores^d Aged about Sixty three Years,” answers “[1] that he knows the said Frederick Vandersloth well and did know him somewhat eight Years & somewhat more, and likewise say he knows the s^d Anna Margareth Vanderslott about Seven Year and a half, and Yet. [¶; 2] About their intermarriage of the Libellant and Defendant, was in the latterend of June or beginning of July in the Year 1785, before Frederick Dallecker Minister of the Gospel, and lived and cohabited together as Man & Wife in the House of the Deponent in the aforesaid Township & County [¶; 3] The Defendant deserted from her Husband the said Libellant Wilfully of her own accord, and the Deponent doth not know any reason of her disertion [sic] and she lived seperate & apart from her Said Husband Since January 1785 and to this day to his knowledge [¶; 5] any other matter or thing material the Deponent knows [next word careted] not only that the Defendant took her Effects away without the knowledge of the Libellant and that she had Promised the Libellant in the presence of the Deponent, never to leave her Husband the very night before her departure and semed they had been in Unity together then, and further the Deponent said not”; Ulrick Graeber (signed in German script) Ulrich Gräber), “of the Township & County afores^d Aged about fifty nine Years,” answers “[1] that he knows the Libellant about Eight Years, and doth know him Yeat, and the Defendant about Seven Years and a half, [¶; 2] about the intermarriage of the Libellant and Defendant, all he knows is that they were married before Frederick Dallecker Minister of the Gospel and further knows not [¶; 3] that the Libellant & Defendant lived and cohabited together as Man & Wife, for about Six Months, [¶; 4] in what manner the Defendant left the Libellant he knows not, but to his the Deponents knowledge the Defendant deserted from her Husband the Libellant Six or Seven Years ago, and to his knowledge lived Seperate & apart from her s^d Husband to this day and further to his knowledge knows not.”  Divorced 18 Aug. 1791.  FHL film #1023006, images 262-275 (273).

WAGER, George v. Sarah.  Petition of George Wager, “of Philadelphia … now about twenty years of age,” sworn to before a Philadelphia alderman 4 June 1803 and filed 5 Aug. 1803 at #292 Sept. Term 1803 (Defendant purportedly served personally at the City of Philadelphia on or before 15 Aug. 1803); married “in the month of August in the year 1801 … a certain Sarah MADIN your Petitioner then being about eighteen years of age”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That since the said marriage your Petitioner has discovered strong reason to believe that the said Sarah Madin was at the time addicted to an abandoned and unchaste course of life. That since the said marriage the said Sarah has committed frequent acts of adultery in violation of her duty to your Petitioner and of the laws of the land.”  Defendant’s answer, filed 5 Sept. 1803: “The Answer of Sarah Wager to the libel of her husband George Wager. [¶] This defendant saving and reserving to herself all manner of benefit and advantage of exception to the manifest untruths uncertainties & imperfections in the said libel contained, for answer thereunto, or unto so much thereof as this defendant is advised is any way material for her to make answer to, she answereth and Saith. That true it is that the said George Wager on the twenty first day of August in the year of our Lord One thousand Eight hundred & one was lawfully joined in marriage with the defendant, from which time – she this defendant from all manner of adultery or incontinence – or any suspicion thereof hath lived exempt, innocent & free; and she this defendant doth expressly deny the charge of Adultery stated against her in the libel of the said George. All which matters and things this defendant is ready to aver, maintain and prove, as this honourable Court shall award, and humbly pleadeth the same in bar to the libel of the said George, and therefore prays to be hence dismissed. [signed by counsel; the jurat is blank].”  Testimony taken and sworn to 12 Sept. 1803, on two interrogatories, filed 12 Sept. 1803: Christina Gifford, “of the Northern Liberties,” answers “[1] that she is acquainted with George and Sarah Wager, the Parties to this Cause. that some time in the course of the last winter, when this deponent lived with the said Sarah Wager as a servant in the Northern Liberties, she saw the said Sarah Wager in bed with a young man, and he remained with her in bed all night. that this deponent saw him several times at the house; that it was after the marriage of the said Sarah to George Wager that the young man was with her as aforesaid. that this deponent slept in the same room with the said Sarah on the said night, and usually slept in the same room with her. At this time Sarah Wager lived at a small house on the Commons, which had only one chamber, & this deponent lived with her only two or three weeks. [2] that she can say nothing farther.”; Mary Callaghan (signed with her mark), “of the Northern Liberties,” answers “[1] that she is acquainted with George and Sarah Wager; tht she lived with the said Sarah Wager as a servant during the last winter when she lived on the commons in the Northern Liberties, and before the time that Christina Gifford who is this deponent’s sister, went to live with her. That this deponent slept in the same room with the said Sarah; the house in which she lived having but one chamber: that on one night while this deponent lived with her, a young man slept with her in the same bed all night; and this deponent likewise slept in the room. That this deponent saw the same young man several times at the house in the day time and several other young men, also in day time. [2] that she can say nothing farther relating to this Cause.”  Divorced 13 Sept. 1803.  FHL film #1023006, images 283-297 (289).

WAGNER/WAGGONER, George v. Dorothea.  Petition of George Waggoner (signed George Wagner), “of the county of Lancaster,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 28 Feb. 1795 and apparently filed that day (when a subpoena was awarded, and copy served by George on Dorothea in the Borough of Lancaster) at April Term 1795; married “on the Twenty sixth day of February in the year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and seventy five … a certain Dorothea FOULKE of Conestoga Township in the county aforesaid”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Dorothea hath behaved in a very gross and indecent manner, and seperated herself from your Petitioner for about the space of six Months and hath committed Adultery of which she hath been convicted at a Court of Oyer & Terminer — held at Lancaster for the county of Lancaster the last Monday in February in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety five, a copy of which conviction under the seal of the said court is herewith shewn.”  [Includes certificate of conviction on 24 Feb. 1795 of “Dorothea Waggoner of Mannor Township in the County aforesaid,” which does not name the party with whom the adultery was committed on 1 Jan. 1795.]  Divorced (as Waggoner) 7 Sept. 1795.  FHL film #1023006, images 298-309 (303); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), p. 9.

WALTON, Elijah v. Sarah.  Petition of Elijah Walton, “of Bucks County, Labourer,” sworn to before an alderman [of Philadelphia?] 3 Aug. 1805 and filed that day at #256 Sept. Term 1805 (Defendant served 3 Dec. 1805 [apparently not by the Sheriff] “at her place of residence in Arch Street in the City of Philadelphia”); married “on the [blank] day of February, one thousand, seven hundred, and ninety five”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Sarah in violation of her marriage vow, hath for a considerable time past given herself up to Adulterous practices, and been guilty of Adultery with divers persons, and particularly with Thomas Search, William Tully, and Joseph Jackson.”  Testimony (undated [examiner appointed 2 Sept. 1805], and signed but not sworn to) on five interrogatories: Christopher Walton, “of the county of Philadelphia farmer,” answers “[1] I am a brother of Elijah Walton, and have known Sarah Walton his wife for eight or ten years. [2] I was not present when they were married, but it was understood in the family that they were married, and they lived and cohabited together as man and wife for several years, during which she had two children [3] When I lived n Pine alley in Southwark in a house belonging to Elijah Walton,–I think it was in the year eighteen hundred – Sarah Walton came up to my house from Morris river, where her husband then lived. Her father was at my house at the same time, and desired me to call him early one morning, because he wanted to go to the horse market. I got up to call him a little after sun rise, and was obliged to go through a room in which Thomas Search, one of my boarders, slept, in order to call him, and I saw the said Thomas Search and Sarah Walton the defendant in bed together and in the act of committing adultery. I stept back and went down stairs. I saw her often in company with a man named William Tully, and they were hugging and kissing each other, and I have found them in a room together, but never saw any thing more pass between them than his playing with her – I know nothing of any connexion between her and Joseph Jackson. Last February was two years Elijah Walton and his wife the defendant, myself, and some-relations, Nicholas Walton being one of them, set off for the Genessee country together. At the Spring house tavern Elijah Walton stopped his team, and wanted his wife to return with him to Philadelphia, but she would not, and told him so in my presence. He rode on with us the next day, and tried to persuade her to return with him but she would not; She went on with us without him. The second night afterwards I saw her in bed with Nicholas Walton (who is my second cousin) and they were in the act of committing adultery, and I saw them in the same situation eight or ten nights successively afterwards. She was in company with us about two weeks, and then she and Nicholas Walton left us, and went away together. [4] Sarah Walton has lived separate from her husband ever since she went away with Nicholas Walton as I have mentioned. He tried several times to persuade her to live with him after she first conducted herself in the manner I stated; and three or four time she went home with him, but stayed only a short time with him. But she has not been with him at all since she went with Nicholas Walton. [5] I recollect nothing farther material.”  Divorced 5 March 1806.  FHL film #1023006, images 310-327 (318).

WALTON, Martha v. Benjamin, Jr.  Petition of Martha Walton sworn to 21 Jan. 1788 but filed on or before 20 Jan. 1788 (when a subpoena was awarded) at #62[?] April Term 1788; married “on the twenty seventh Day of December in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & eighty one “to Benjamin Walton Jun^r, both of whom, your Libellant & the s^d Benjamin, then & yet being of the County of Philadelphia in this State”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That soon after their s^d Intermarriage the s^d Benjamin forgetting his Duty to your Libellant betook himself to idle lewd & disorderly courses, living with lewd Women & wasting his Time & Money with them & abandoning your Libellant & his children That he hath committed Adultery many times with divers Women & hath in the Course of his Debaucheries contracted venereal Disorders, to the endangering [sic; of?] the Lives of your Libellant & Children.”  Petition marked “6 July 1788 Discont^d | pa[ge] 335.”  FHL film #1023006, images 328-332. (328)

WARD, Ann v. Patric.  Petition of Ann Ward, by her next friend Samuel Tudor, sworn to 27 Oct. 1813 and filed 4 Nov. 1813 (Defendant served by publication and proclamation [details not given]) [there appears to have been an earlier petition filed at #87 July Term 1813, for which a subpoena was issued 6 July 1813]; married “on or about the twelfth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand eightseven hundred & ninety six”; cohabited “from that time until the month of May last”; grounds: “the said Patric in violation of his said marriage vow hath for a considerable time past given himself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of Adultery.“  Testimony sworn to 27 Jan. 1814 on four interrogatories: Mary Wood (signed with her mark), “of the District of Southwark, aged twenty years and upwards,“ answers “[1] that she is acquainted with the Libellant and Respondent, and has known them for about a year. [2] that the Libellant, & Respondent lived together as man and wife, and were so generally reputed to be by their neighbours; that they have several children, which the Respondent treated & considered as his, and has acted towards the Libellant as their mother. [3] that a certain Catherine Brown rented a house in Southwark, after which this deponent went to live with her, and paid half the rent, and [next two words careted] that they joined together to take in washing, which they followed for a livelyhood. That about the seventeenth day of May last the Respondent came to their house in the evening; after being in the house for a short time, he and the said Catherine Brown went up stairs together into her chamber, where she had a bed for her own use. They continued together in the room all that night, in the morning deponent saw him coming out of the Chamber. After he left the Chamber she —[?] the bed of the said Catherine, and it appeared as if two persons had been laying in it. The next day but one after this, Deponent went to bring home cloths [sic] from their customers. On her return she found the front door of their house fastened, on her knocking the said Catherine Brown opened the door, from her appearance deponent supposed she had been shortly before undressed; Deponent immediately after this went up stairs into the chamber of the said Catherine Brown in order to put the Cloths away, when she observed the Respondent in the bed of the said Catherine, and his coat vest & Hat laying near. After Deponent left the Chamber Brown returned to it, and to the best of her knowledge and belief the Respondent and she remained in it together all night; The room deponent slept in adjoined the Chamber, and it appeared to her from what she heard as if two persons were in it that night [4] that shortly after the Respondent had been with the said Catherine Brown she was taken sick & so continued, and is at this time with Child, and expects to be confined about the seventeenth of the next month. The deponent has heard the [next word careted] said Catherine say that the Respondent wasis the father of the child of which she is pregnant, and that she had sworn it to him before Alderman Douglass.”  Testimony sworn to 28 Jan. 1814: Catherine Brown (signed with her mark), “of the District of Southwark aged twenty two years and upwards,” answers “[1] that she knows the Libellant and Respondent, and has been acquainted with them for about one year. [2] that the Libellant and Respondent lived together as man and wife, and were so generally reputed to be. [3] that about the middle of the Month of May last, the Respondent called at her house in Southwark, which she had rented of him. That he remained in the house with her all night, and had the criminal connection with her. That he returned in the evening of the next day but one after, and slept with her the whole of that night, and then had further criminal connection with her. That soon after this she became sick, and is now pregnant, from her connection with the said Respondent. Deponent further saith that in the month of August last she went before a Magistrate, & swore the Child of which she is so pregnant, to the Respondent, before that he had gone off and deserted his family, and still continues absent. [4] that she does not know of any matter or thing that may be beneficial to the Libellant further than she has deposed unto.”  FHL film #1023006, images 333-347 (337).

WATSON (also WHATSON), Mary v. Moses.  Petition of Mary Whatson (signed Mary Whatson; jurat signed Mary Watson) for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend Mary Ash, dated at Philadelphia 18 Sept. 1802, sworn to there the same day in open Supreme Court, and filed that day at #447 Sept. Term 1802 (Defendant served [not by the Sheriff] 13 Oct. 1802); married “on the 23^d – day of February in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand seven hundred [next three words careted] & ninety two at the County of Philadelphia”; cohabited “from that time until the month of April in the Year 1802”; grounds: “that the said Moses from the 23^d day of February of the year until month of April 1792, a few weeks since — from which time, he and your Libellant have lived seperate and apart, from bed and board, and having before totally alienated his affections from your Libellant, is constantly beating and abusing your Libellant in the most cruel manner, so as to endanger [next page; her?] life; and offers such Indignities to her person, as to render her condition intolerable and life burthensome; from all of which it is evident that the said Moses hath been guilty of cruel and barbarous treatment towards your Libellant as to endager [sic] her life, and in offering such indignities to her person, as to render her condition intolerable and life burthensome.”  FHL film #1023006, images 381-384 (383).

WEAVER/WEBER, Christian v. Lydia.  Petition of Christian Weaver (signed in German script Christian Weber), “an inhabitant of the County of Cumberland,” sworn to in Cumberland Co. before a judge of the Court of Common Pleas 6 Jan. 1800 and filed 6 Feb. 1800 (subpoena returned: defendant not found); married [place and date not stated] “a certain Lydia LONG”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that the said Lydia Long after the celebration of the said marriage committed adultery with a certain [blank] Albert, and wilfully and maliciously deserted your petitioner without any reasonable cause for the space of four years and upwards.”  FHL film #1023006, images 348-355 (353); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Cumberland County Pennsylvania Divorces, 1789-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1994), p. 7.

WEIBERT, Anthony Felix v. Altahea.  Petition of Anthony Felix Weibert (signed simply “Weibert”) sworn to at Philadelphia before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 12 June 1787 and filed 3 July 1787; married “on the fifth day of February in the year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and Eighty two … with Altahea his present wife, before that time named Altahea GARRISON the widow of John Garrison, by the Reverend William Rogers minister of the Gospel”; cohabited “until the thirteenth day of January in the year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and Eighty three”; grounds: “the said Altathea from the thirteenth day of January aforesaid and long before in violation of her duty and marriage Vows hath alienated her affections from your Libellant and hath repeatedly committed adultery and given herself up to lewd practices and intercourse with lewd and debauched Men, as your Libellant believes:– And that the said Altathea on the thirteenth day of January aforesaid withdrew herself from the house in which they lived, and wilfully and maliciously deserted and absented [next word careted] from your Petitioner, without any reasonable cause, and hath ever since continued so to do, by withdrawing herself to Baltimore and other Places to your Petitioner unknown.”   Testimony (in all of which the Defendant is called Alathea) sworn to 4 Jan. 1787 [sic; 1788?]: Peter Peres, “of the Northern Liberties of the City of Philadelphia Practitioner in Physick aged about forty years,” answers inter alia “ That he was present at the wedding of the said Felix Anthony [next word careted] Felix Weibert with the said Alathea – he thinks they were married in the Month of February 1782 in the City of Philadelphia by Parson Rogers a Baptist Clergyman  That the said Felix Anthony [next word careted] Felix Weibet & his wife Alathia lived together as man & wife till the Month of January 1783 latter End of the winter March or April 1792 when he said Anthony Felix Weibert went on his Duty to fort Pitt that he desired his Wife af^d to go there with him but she refused that the said Anthony Felix Weibert returned to his Wife about July 1782 & remained with her about a Month when he went again to Fort Pitt that they appeared then to live happily together that he came back again to the City in December following … that during both the first & second time of the absence of the said Anthony Felix Weibert from his said wife Her House was greatly resorted to by the Gentlemen of the French Army & others both in the day & Evening & that she sometimes went out with on parties …”  Testimony taken 4 Jan. 1788 on four interrogatories: Robert Scott, “of the City of Philadelphia Engraver Aged forty three years,” answers inter alia That he has known both Anthony Felix Weibert & Alathea his wife about five years … That the Deponent lived in the same house with the said Alathea at the time she was married to the said Anthony Felx Weibert but was not present at the Wedding.”  Testimony apparently all taken at the tavern of William Hassell on Chestnut Street in Philadelphia: Joseph Rush, “of the City of Philadelphia Ship Wright aged sixty eight years,” answers inter alia “That he never saw [next word careted] knew Anthony Felix Weibert till this day  that he know Alathea Weibert formerly Alathea Garrison on her first arrival in Philadelphia from Hispaniole which several years ago … That the said Alathea Weibert lived in the Deponents House on her first Arrival in the City of Philadelphia that her Character has always been that of a lewd woman and a reputable woman of the Deponents acquaintance kept Company with her” John Mason, “aged fifty one years,” answers inter alia “That he did not know the said Alathea Weinbert till she rented two rooms in this Deponents house during her Husbands Absence at fort Pitt this happened in the spring of the Year [next six words careted] about five or six years ago that she remained in Deponents House about half a year.” Lawrence Swope (signed in German script Lowrenz Schwab), “of the City of Philadelphia Cordwainer … aged thirty eight years,” answers inter alia “That he has frequently seen Alethea Weibert from her first arrival in the City of Philadelphia about seven years ago, but never spoke with her till August 1792 that the first time he knew Anthony Felix Weibert was in June or July 1792 … That the Conversation of the said Alathea Weibert was very loose and indecent She has frequently told the Deponent that She did not like her Husband that she married him only for his money & that had repeatedly expressed her liking for different young Men in this Deponents presence – The Character of the said Alathea was that of a lewd infamous Woman.”  Peter Peres was further interrogated on 10 Jan. 1788.  Testimony sworn to 8 March 1788 on five interrogatories: John R. B. Rogers, “of the City of Philadelphia practitioner,“ answers “[1] That he hath known Anthony Felix Weibert from March or April 1792 – that he first became acquainted with them at Fort Pitt That he doth not know Althea the Wife of the said Anthony Felix Weibert [2] that he only knew C the said Anthony Felix Weibert at Fort Pitt that he arrived there the latter End of March or beginning of April 1792 that he continued at Fort Pitt till the beginning of July, 1792 when he set out for Philadelphia – that he said Anthony Felix Weibert returned to Fort Pitt the beginning of September in the same Year & set out again for Philadelphia the latter End of November in the same Year to the best of the deponents Recollection – That this Deponent knows nothing as to the Conduct of the Wife of the said Anthony Felix Weibert – That the same Anthony absented his Duty at Fort Pitt at said [next three words written above the line] at said time as Engineer in the American Troops in that department [3] that he knows nothing of the Character of the said Alathea [sic] or of her Conduct during her Husbands Absence. [4] That [next word careted] when the said Anthony Felix Weibert arrived at Fort Pitt [next three words careted] in September af^d he applied to the Deponent as a physician & upon Examination the said DefendaAnthony Felix Weiber appeared to be afflicted with a venereal Disease [next two words careted] a Gonorhae & to the best of the Deponents Judgment of about ten days standing. That the general Character of the said Anthony Felix Weibert at Fort Pitt was that of a Man of great Chastity & propriety of Conduct.”  Divorced (as Anthony Felix Weibert and Alathea Weibert) 1788.  FHL film #1023003, images 356-378 (376).

WELPER – see WOELPER

WHATSON – see WATSON

WHITE, Elizabeth v. Joseph.  Petition of “Elizabeth Wilkie” (signed Eliza White), “by her Mother and next friend Elizabeth Corner,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 8 Jan. 1802, and filed that day at #16 March Term 1802 (subpoena returned as defendant not found, but “last place of Abode in 2^d Street Next Doore from Corner of pine St int”; served by proclamation at Philadelphia and publication); married “on the third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven[next word careted] Eight hundred and ninety one”; cohabited “from that time until the month of November last”; grounds: “that the said Joseph from the month of November last hath wilfully and maliciously and in violation of his marriage vow, given himself up to adulterous practices, and been guilty of Adultery.”  Testimony taken 21 Oct. 1802 on five interrogatories, filed 23 Oct. 1802: Elizabeth McDonnald (signed with her mark), “of the district of Southwark,” answers “[1] that she has known Eliza and Joseph White, the Parties to this Cause since they were children. [2] that the said Parties are commonly reputed to be man and wife, but when or by whom they were married this deponent can not say. [3] that the said Joseph White did, on one night. sleep with this deponent at the house of Elizabeth McGuire in Shippen Street in the district of Southwark, where this deponent then lived; this deponent and the said Joseph then had connection together as man and wife; that this was in winter and not a year ago, but the particular time this deponent cannot recollect. This deponent did not then know that the said Joseph was a married man, and she does not now know that he was married at that time. And that she was in bed and in liquor when the said Joseph came to sleep with her. That it may be about a year since this happened; and the said Joseph had not before or since any connection with this deponent; [interlined phrase] but this deponent knows that, a few nights after that abovementioned, the said Joseph spent the night with another woman in the same house. [4] that she knows nothing farther relating to this cause.”  Divorced 7 Sept. 1804.  FHL film #1023006, images 385-398 (388).

WHITE, William v. Mary.  Petition of William White, “of the city of Philadelphia,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 8 Oct. 1794 and filed that day; married “on the eighteenth day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety four at the county of Philadelphia … a certain Mary DAY of the city of Philadelphia”; cohabited “for about five months”; grounds: “That on the thirteenth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & ninety four at the county of Philadelphia, the said Mary, forgetting the duty she owed to the Libellant, did commit adultery with a certain Joseph Senton.”  Petition marked “6 Jan^d [17]97 n.b.f. pa[ge].1&2.”  FHL film #1023006, images 391-404 (401).

WILLIAMS, Lewis v. Susanna.  Petition of Lewis Williams dated at Philadelphia 19 March 1798, sworn to in open court that day at a Supreme Court at Philadelphia, and filed that day at #6 Sept. Term 1798 (subpoena marked “German Street between 3 & 4 Street, Southwark” served); married “in the month of January In the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Ninety-five in the County of Philad^a … to a certain Susanna SCARRET”; cohabited “from that time untill the month of April last.”; grounds: “that the said Susanna from the said Month of April last from which time [next two words careted] She and your Libellant have lived separate and apart from bed and board and long before [next word careted] She totally alienated her affection from your Libellant and had given herself up to lewd practices and to the having adulterous conversation and intercourse with lewd men and more particularly that She the said Susanna for the Space of one month last past hath lived in the said County, in an house of ill-fame in open and avowed adultery from all which it is evident That the said Susanna has been guilty of adultery.”   Petition marked “take off Docq^t 1800 pa[ge] 269.”  FHL film #1023006, images 405-409 (407).

WILLIAMS, Mary v. William.  Petition of Mary Williams, “the Wife of William Williams late of the City of Philadelphia Taylor,” by her next friend John Cornish, sworn to at Philadelphia 10 March 1798 and filed 21 March 1798 at # 791 March Term 1798 (subpoena returned, defendant not found; served by proclamation at Philadelphia and by publication); married “on or about the nineteenth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety two”; [period of cohabitation not expressly stated]; grounds: “That the said William Williams without a reasonable Cause, hath wilfully and maliciously deserted her, and absented himself from her, for and during the space of fourteen months and more.”  Petition marked “1800 Struck off the Docq^t.”  FHL film #1023006, images 410-415 (414).

WILLIAMSON, Lydia v. Jeremiah.  Petition of Lydia Williamson, “by Thomas Saltar of the city of Philadelphia Merchant her next friend,” filed 12 March 1787 (affidavit of Michael Thompson [signed Michael Thomson] states “that the general Residence of the Defendant Jeremiah Williamson, as far as the Deponent knows & has Reason to believe is in Gloucester County in New Jersey & that he hath not resided in this State for some Years past the Deponent believes; that the Deponent hath not been able to find the s^d Defendant either in this State or New Jersey altho he sought for him; but that he left on the twenty fourth Day of March last past a copy of the within Subpoena at the House of one Eldridge in Gloucester County in New Jersey where he was informed this [next word careted] Defendant had resided & that he had been there the Day before & was expected to be there again …); married “on the first Day of February in the Year of our Lord one thousand, seven hundred & seventy six … then named Lydia JOSIAH … by the Reverend [blank] Muhlenburgh, & that they during their Marriage have had three children two sons & one daughter”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “in the beginning of the Year one thousand seven hundred & eighty two, he treated your Petitioner very illy by getting drunk, abusing & even beating her, & that he at length wilfully & maliciously deserted her, & absented himself from her, & that he has continued absent from Your Petitioner for five Years past from the beginning of the Year last mentioned & still continues absent from her, & without any reasonable cause, during all which Time he has not afforded any assistance for the Support of your Petitioner or her said Children, but has wholly refused it.”  Petition marked “Jan^y 1789 n.b.f.  pa[ge].”  FHL film #1023006, images 416-420 (418).

WILLIS, Elizabeth v. Joseph.  Petition of Elizabeth Willis [not signed by her] for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend John Thompson, sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 29 July 1793 and filed 31 July 1793 (defendant served [not by the sheriff] 1 Aug. 1793); married “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy six at the County of Philadelphia … to a certain Joseph Willis of the said City House Carpenter”; cohabited “untill the Eleventh day of this Instant”; grounds: “that the said Joseph on or about the month of [blank] in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety three at the County aforesaid without any cause but his own evil minded disposition, cut her on the forehead and on the arm with an axe with an intent that the said Elizabeth to kill and murder. And your Libellant further sheweth unto your Honour that the said Joseph did on the morning of the Eleventh Instant at the County aforesaid while your Libellant was sleeping in her bed make an assault upon her and then and there with a piece of Iron did break the lower Jaw of your Libellant in two places cut open her Check wounded her on her Temple and on her body with an intent your Libellant to kill and murder. That your Libellant is now in the Philadelphia Hospital under the care of the care of the [sic] Physician of that Institution, wholly abandoned [by her?–blotted] said husband and supported by the Charity of her friends. That the said Joseph has a real Estate in the County aforesaid follows the trade of house-Carpenter and is able to contribute to the support of your Libellant according to his Marriage vow.” Petition marked “8 May 1800 n. b. f. | pa[ge]. 12.”  FHL film #1023006, images 421-425 (423).

WILSON, Susan v. Hugh.  Petition of Susan Wilson (signed with her mark), “of Lancaster County, Spinster,” dated at Lancaster 12 June 1789, sworn to in Lancaster County before a judge of the Court of Common Pleas the same day, and filed 11 July 1789; married “to a certain Hugh Wilson then of the Boroug County of Lancaster, on the 11^th Day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty two”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said Hugh hath behaved in a very cruel and improper manner towards your petitioner, that he hath frequently beat her until her life was in Danger, that he hath often eloped and deserted your petitioner, and left her without the necessaries of life for her support. [¶] That some time in September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty two, the said Hugh deserted and left your Petitioner, since which time she has neither seen him, nor received any letter from him, nor does she know where he resides.”  Petition marked “22 Dec^r 1789 n.b.f. | pa[ge] 474.”  FHL film #1023006, images 426-428 (426); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), p. 2.

WILT, Nicholas v. Catharine.  Petition of Nicholas Wilt, “late of Cumberland County and State of Pennsylvania,” dated 20 Nov. 1789 [no jurat] and filed on or before 15 April 1790 when a subpoena was issued; married [place and date not stated] “Catharine HOOBER”; cohabited “upwards of eight years”; grounds: “during which time the said Catharine was often Guilty of Infidelity to your Petitioner’s Bed  And that some time in April last the said Catharine deserted your Petitioner’s House and went into the State of Maryland with a certain Jonathan Devire with whom she the said Catharine has Since lived and Still lives in a State of Adultry.”  Testimony sworn to 18 Nov. 1790 before the Chief Justice, and filed that day: Thomas James (signed with his mark) deposes “that he has been acquainted with Catharine Wilt wife of Nicholas Wilt Since the Spring of the year 1786, and that he often Saw a certain John Divire intimate with the Said Catharine in the absence of the Said Nicholas and at the house of the Said Nicholas. And that this Deponant with about twelve other in search of the Said John Divire with Several warrants to apprehend him, found the said John Divire and the Said Catharine in an out Springhouse near the break of Day, in which as it appeared to this Deponant, they has been [next word careted] all that night in bed, and at other times, there being a bed placed in Said Spring house, and no other person inhabiting Said Spring house and on the approach of this Deponant and others to Said Spring house, the Said John Divire fled to the mountains without his clothes, and that about twenty four hours after this Deponant and two others apprehended the Said John Divire and took him to the Gaol of Cumberland County, and that the Said Catharine went on foot from the River Susquehanna, where She lived, in company with Said John Divire then in custody to the Said Gaol of Cumberland, and that this Deponant often Saw the Said Catharine weeping for the Situation of the Said John Divire. And that about eighteen months ago the Said Catharine deserted the house of her Said Husband and her three children the eldest being about nine years old, and went off with the Said John Divire to the State of Virginia as this Deponant has heard and believes. And this Deponent further saith that he lived about two miles from the Said Nicholas Wilts and that he often was imployed to work for the Said Nicholas and on charging the Said John Divire with having a criminal connection with the Said Catharine he did not deny the Said Charge but laughed. This Deponent further Saith that the Said John Divire is a man of bad fame. And further this Deponant Saith not.”  Testimony taken and sworn to at “Louisburgh” 20 Nov. 1790 before the Chief Justice, and filed that day: Robert Boyce deposes “That he lived on the Farm where Nicholas Wilt lived in the County of Cumberland about two years Since and that one evening in his presence a Dispute arose Between the said Nicholas and a certain John Devire a Person of Notorious bad Character, in which dispute or Quarrel the said Nicholas was ill treated has his Door and windows Broken when he Shut them against the said devire [sic] that Shortly after the Quarrel ended he this Deponent Saw the said Devire and Catharine the Wife of the said Nicholas clasping each other in their Arms in a very loving like manner, at another time on going into the Barn on the same farm he Saw the said devire and Catharine Standing together in the Cow Stable And they appeared much alarmed at discovering him  That at a time when the said Devire was Seized by Authority for some breach of the Law, this deponent was along when he was Conveyed to the Gaol of Carslile [sic] & that the aforesaid Catharine followed after and attended him the said Devire on the Journey Carried their Cloathing [sic] in the same Handkerchief to the Jail Door and further That he this deponant hath Still lived in the same neighbourhood and he never heard nor knew of Catharine aforesaid Returning to the said Nicholas her husband whom She left with three [change from ‘two’] Small Children near two Years Since & further Sayeth not.”  Petition marked “Sep. [17]95  n.b.f.  pa[ge] 62.”  FHL film #1023006, images 429-440 (438); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Cumberland County Pennsylvania Divorces, 1789-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1994), pp. 3-4.

WOELPER, John David v. Johannetta.  [See the following case for a prior petition.]  Petition of John David Woelper “of the City of Philadelphia Esquire,” sworn to before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on 18 Sept. 1795 and filed that day (Defendant served [not by the sheriff] 5 Oct. 1795); married “on the twenty fourth day of December in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty five”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “the said Johannetta Woelper on the [blank] in the Year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and ninety — in violation of her Marriage Vow, hath wilfully, and maliciously deserted herself and absented herself, from her family; without a reasonable Cause for and during the Term and Space of four Years.”  Answer (signed with her mark), filed 16 Dec. 1795: “This defendant saving and reserving to herself now and at all times hereafter all and all [sic] manner of benefit and advantage of exception to the uncertainties, imperfections and deficiencies of the s^d Libel, for answer thereunto saith, or unto so much thereof as she is advised, is any ways material, or necessary, for her to answer unto. [¶] That she is not guilty of wilfully and maliciously deserting and absenting herself in violation of her marriage vow from her family without a reasonable cause, for and during the time mentioned in the s^d libel, or for and during any other time, and that altho true it is that she hath withdrawn herself from the house of the s^d David, [next word careted] it and was from necessity, and because he had several times since, their s^d marriage, cruelly and wantonly turned her out of doors, and by cruel and barbarous usage, indangered her life, and had repeatedly offered such indignities to her person, as to render her condition intolerable, and life burthensome, and that he thereby force her to withdraw from the s^d David’s house.”  Petition marked “4 June [17]96 Settled  pa[ge] 301.”   FHL film #1023006, images 441-446 (443); see also WOLPER, below.

WOLPER, Hannah [i.e., Johannetta] v. David [i.e., John David].  Petition of Hannah Wolper (signed with her mark, with witnesses John Browne and Nancy Paterson), “of the Northern Liberties in the County of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend John Browne, sworn to before a Justice of the Supreme Court at Philadelphia 20 June 1791, filed on or before 15 July 1791 when a subpoena was issued to David Welper, late of Philadelphia County (served [apparently by counsel]); married “since the twenty fourth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & eighty five.– that for two years previous to their intermarriage, your petitioner, or libellant lived with the said David, in capacity of housekeeper upon an agreement, at the rate of five shillings per week [next four words careted] to be paid your libellant, but for the whole of the said term of two years she never received any compensation whatever”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “that since their intermarriage, the said David, has cruelly & wantonly turned your petitioner out of his ‘doors,’ that he has by cruel & barbarous usage endangered the live of your libellant, & has repeatedly ‘offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable, & life burthensome, & thereby has forced your petitioner to withdraw, from the said Davids ‘house.’ — [next page] That for nearly six months your libellant has lived separate & apart from her said husband during which time she has depended solely on the labour of her [next word careted] own hand for her support without receiving any compensation relief from the said David proportioned to what she had a right to expect. That the said David used constantly to bring a certain Henry Sherer in a state of intoxication, to this house, while your libellant resided, with the said David whose company was extreemly [sic] disagreeable to your petitioner, of which when she used to complain, the said David would abuse & ill treat her. That your petitioner when married to the said David, brought to him three hundred pounds in certificates, which he now has, & he received from a certain M^r Mills late of this city twenty one pounds specie, of the property of your libellant, beside which [interlined? word] he has upwards of a thousand pounds at present to best of the knowledge & belief of your petitioner.”  Answer, dated at Philadelphia 16 Jan. 1792 and signed (only) by counsel for the Defendant: “This defend^t saving and reserving to himself now and at all Times hereafter all and all manner of benefit and advantage of Exception to the Insufficiencies, uncertainties and Other Imperfections and Defects of the said Libel, for answer thereunto – saith or unto so much thereof as this Defend^t is advised is any ways material or necessary for him this Defend^t [¶] That he is not Guilty of any Cruelties and Indignities to the Person of the said Hannah Exhibited or If the Defend^t did Treat the Libellant In a Cruel and Barbarous manner as mentioned or offer [next word careted] such Indignities to the Person of the said Hannah as to render her Condition Intollerable & life Burthensome, that the Libellant has agreed with the Defend^t since and received Satisfaction.”  Parties agree on 21 Feb. 1792 to refer the case to referees, who decide at Philadelphia on 5 April 1792 as follows: “Having heard the allegations and examined the Proofs of the parties in this cause Referr’d to us, we do award that the defendant David Walper, pay to the plantiff [sic] Hannah Walper the Sum of Sixteen Pounds five Shillings, being the amount of the allowance we are of the opinion Should be made her, at the rate of five Shillings per Week to be paid out of the Thirty Pounds in the hands of Christopher Daher— that the Defendant allow the said Plantiff at the rate of five Shillings per Week during his natural life – but Should he die before the sd Thirty Pounds are paid to this Plantiff Weekly at the above Rate Then what shall beleft [sic] of it to be paid to the Plantiff — And this allowance is in no wise to affect her right to any part of her Husbands estate after his death, in case she Should Survive him”; report confirmed next day.  See also WOELPHER, above.  FHL film #1023006, images 379-380, 447-455 (453)

WRIGHT, Joseph v. Catharine.  Petition of Joseph Wright (unsigned), “of the County of Lancaster, yeoman,” sworn to before a Supreme Court Justice 28 May 1788 [no filing date] (the Chief Justice attested before the Sheriff at Dauphin County on 1 July 1788 that he personally served the Defendant with the subpoena); married “on the 8^th Day of September, in the year our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty four … to a certain Catharine LICK, of the Borough of Lancaster”; [period of cohabitation not expressly stated]; grounds: “That the said Catharine hath behaved in a very gross and improper manner towards your Petitioner, hath frequently eloped, and hath run your Petitioner in Debt to a considerable sum, which he hath discharged. [¶] That your Petitioner and the said Catharine have lived Seperate from each other, since the month of August 1785, during which time the said Catharine hath behaved herself in the most lewd and improper manner, and hath committed Adultery of which She hath been convicted at the Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace in Dauphin County, the third Tuesday of May instant. A copy of which conviction, under the seal of the said Court, is herewith shewn.”  Conviction, on 22 May 1788 at the May 1788 Sessions of the Dauphin County Court of Quarter Sessions, of adultery on 10 April 1787 with Joseph Keller of the same county, yeoman (having then a wife Elizabeth), “begetting a bastard child.”  Attached certificate: “These are to certify, that on the 8 Day of September Anno Domini one thousand seven hundred and eighty four Joseph Wright of Manor Township Lancaster County and Catharine Lick of the Borough of Lancaster Borough were by Authority of a License lawfully joined together in Matrimony per me. Witness my Hand [signed] Henry Muhlenburg | Lutheran Minister at Lancaster.”  Divorced 24 Sept. 1788.  FHL film #1023006, images 456-472 (468); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Pennsylvania Divorces: Dauphin County, 1788-1867, and York County, 1790-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1995), p. 1; or Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Divorces 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 1-2.

YARNALL, Azel v. Martha.  Petition of Azel Yarnall, “of the County of Delaware in the State of Pennsylvania  Yeoman,” affirmed before the Mayor [of Philadelphia] 15 Dec. 1801 and filed that day at #1 March Term 1802 (Defendant served personally in Delaware County on 11 Jan. 1802); married “on the fifteen of November in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & ninety eight”; cohabited “from that time … [and] in all respects demeaned himself as a kind and loving husband untill about one month since”; grounds: “altho’ by the law of God as well as by the mutual Vows plighted to each other, they are bound to the Chastity which ought to be inseperable from the marriage State Yet the said Martha in violation of her vow, hath for a Considerable space of time, to wit, for the space of nine months or their about given herself up to adulterous practices and been guilty of adultery and Cohabitation.”  Petition marked “13 March 1802 Ended.”  FHL film #1023006, images 476-479 (478).

YOUNGCAN, George v. Catharine.  Petition of George Youngcan, “of the County of Montgomery and State of Pennsylvania,” sworn to 26 March 1803 and filed 28 March 1803 at #5 Sept. Term 1803; married “on the sixth day of february One thousand seven hundred & Eighty Eight”; cohabited “from that time”; grounds: “And altho by the Laws of God, as well as by the mutual Vows plighted to each other, they are bound to that Chastity which ought to be inseperable from the Marriage state, yet the said Catharine in violation of her Marriage Vow hath Wilfully and Maliciously without a reasonable cause absconded herself from the said George Youncan’s bed & board for the space of four years and upwards.”  FHL film #1023006, images 480-484 (482).

ZENSNER, Catharine v. Philip.  Petition of Catharine Zensner (signed with her mark), “of the City[next word careted] County of Philadelphia,” for a divorce from bed & board and for alimony, by her next friend George Felker, sworn to 19 Nov. 1799 and filed that day at #99 Dec. Term 1799 (note on subpoena indicates that Philip resides at Callowhill & 9th St.); married “near two years since … to a certain Philip Zensner of the Northern Liberties in the County afs^d to whom she hath behaved as became a faithful and dutiful wife”; [period of cohabitation not expressly stated]; grounds: “Nothwithstanding which the said Philip unmindful of his marriage vow soon after their intermarriage willfully and maliciously deserted and absented himself from his family without any reasonable cause for so doing, and still continues absent from the same.”  Petition marked “20 feb^y 1800 Discont^d.”  FHL film #1023006, images 486-489 (488).

ZUBER, Juliana v. John.  Petition of Juliana Zuber (signed with her mark) for a divorce from bed & board and from the bonds of matrimony, by her next friend Henry Stouffer (signed Henry Stauffer), sworn to before a Supreme Court Judge on 23 Oct. 1792 and filed 26 Oct. 1792 (Defendant served by proclamation in Philadelphia and by publication); married “in the Month of August in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty five”; [period of cohabitation not stated]; grounds: “That the said John Zuber hath behaved himself in a very improper manner and hath wickedly and maliciously deserted and separated himself from your Petitioner for the space of seven Years and upwards without any reasonable cause.”  Testimony taken 2 July 1793 on five interrogatories (not signed): John Painer [no identifying information] answers “[1] he knew John Zuber well but doth not know the place of his last abode. [2] That against next August or September it will be five Years since John Zuber seperated him self from his Wife & left the County of Lancaster and has not been heard of since to his knowledge. [3] he did not know much about his General Character but he appeared Extravigant & frolicksome & when his Father in Law would not Maintain him he absconded. [4] that he was Unaquainted with the behaviour of John Zuber to his Wife Juliana that he lived at the distance of Ten Miles from them. [5] that he knew no other matter or thing that might tend to the Benefit or disadvantage of either party.”; Martin Heller [no identifying information] answers “[1] he knew John Zuber well his last place of abode was in Breaknock Township in the County of Lancaster he & his Brother-in-law Abraham Beixler rented his Fathers place from the Executors, Ab^m Beixler kept House & John Zuber Boarded with him [2] against next fall it will be five Years since John Zuber seperated him self from his wife and left the County of Lancaster & has not been heard of since accept that Emanuel Carpenter told him once that he heard he was Married in Kentucky. [3] he was Unaquainted with his General behaviour. [4] he does not know how John Zuber demeaned himself towards his wife Juliana. [5] he does not know any other Matter or thing that may tend to the Benefit or disadvantage of either party.”; Andrew Rudy (affirmed) [no identifying information] answers “[1] that he knew John Zuber & that he lived last at his Fathers Place. [2] against next Fall It will be five Years since he left the County of Lancaster & has not lived with his Wife since, neither has he been heard of according to his Knowledge. [3] he was unacquainted with his General behaviour. [4] he did not know how he demeaned himself towards his wife Juliana. [5] he does not know any other Matter or thing that may tend to the Benefit or disadvantage of either Party.”  Divorced 2 Sept. 1793.  FHL film #1023006, images 490-510 (505); abstracted at Eugene F. Throop, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Divorces, 1786-1832 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1997), pp. 5-6.