Harding v. Harding

• Decision Date: 17 June 1899
• Citation: 54 N.E. 587,180 Ill. 481
• Parties: HARDING v. HARDING.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

180 Ill. 481

54 N.E. 587

HARDING

v.HARDING.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 17, 1899.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Bill by Adelaide M. Harding against George F. Harding. From a decree of the appellate court (79 Ill. App. 590) affirming a decree for complainant, defendant appealed. Modified.

Magruder, J., dissenting.

Wm. J. Ammen, for appellant.

Peck, Miller & Starr, for appellee.

BOGGS, J.

The statement of the cause prepared by Mr. Presiding Justice Windes, of the appellate court, is as follows:

‘February 3, 1890, appellee filed her bill for separate maintenance against appellant, charging that in October, 1888, he began toward her a systematic course of unkind, abusive, and cruel treatment, giving the details thereof, which increased until February 1, 1890, when, by reason thereof, she left their home, and has ever since lived separate and apart from him, without her fault; on information and belief, that appellant was worth, over and above all his debts, two or three million dollars (stating, generally, the character and location of the property), with a gross income exceeding $120,000 a year, and a net income not less than $75,000 to $100,000 per annum; that of their seven children three sons and a daughter were of age, and three daughters-Beatrice, Susan, and Madeline-were minors, aged, respectively, 16, 15, and 11 years; that Susan and Madeline prefer to live with appellee, are of tender age, and require a mother's care; that appellant has of late years given but little of his companionship to his daughters, and is unable to give them that constant care, counsel, direction, and oversight which young girls growing into womanhood require; that their best interests will be conserved by placing them in the custody of appellee; that Beatrice should be allowed to choose for herself whether she will live with appellee or appellant; that the family had for many years resided in a commodious house on Indiana avenue, Chicago, for a number of years had spent their summers on the Atlantic seacoast, and on four different occasions had the pleasures and advantages of foreign residence and travel, remaining in Europe each time from several months to a year or more; and, on information and belief, that the expenses of the home and family had not been less than $15,000 a year for several years preceding October, 1888, when their first trouble began. The bill prays for separate maintenance and suit money, the custody of Susan and Madeline, an allowance for their support, maintenance, and education, and for general relief. Appellant answered at great length, denying the cause for separate maintenance, but admitting that he supplied appellee and his family liberally, and their manner of life at home and abroad, giving details, and that he had a large fortune, but denying that it amounted to two or three million dollars or more; that his gross income has never exceeded $95,000 in any one year, and that his net income exceeded $15,000 a year; also denying that his home and family expenses have exceeded $9,000 per year, on an average, for the last ten years; alleging that his admitted indebtedness exceeds $550,000, and that there were litigated claims against him of not less than $200,000; also that appellee had in secret ways acquired a handsome fortune, without his suspicion or knowledge, from moneys given her for household expenses by him, but which she failed to expend for that purpose; that she is seeking by means of the bill, with its absurd charges, to increase her already large fortune, and that the true cause of the family trouble was because appellee assumed to credit alleged information of his infidelity, and sought to compel him to divide his property with her, giving details of her acts and proceedings to that end, and appellant's efforts to protect himself, and to check her action in that respect; also, that on learning of appellee's leaving, he sent repeated and urgent invitations to her to return, and that, if appellee persists in remaining away, he will insist on the custody of his minor children. By amendment, filed May 2, 1890, appellee alleges that appellant had been guilty of adultery with Mrs. A. R. Louis or Von Louis, and that knowledge of such adultery first came to appellee in August and September, 1888, and also makes charges of adultery of appellant with Mrs. Lathrop and divers persons unknown. May 7, 1890, appellant filed an amendment to his answer, denying every allegation of the amendment, and reiterating the charge that appellee was trying to compel him to divide with her his fortune, and that was the cause of the entire difference between them.

‘May 8, 1890, the cause was referred to Master Boyesen to take proof, and report the same to the court. June 3, 1890, appellee filed her petition for temporary alimony for support of herself and two minor children Susan and Madeline, for the custody of said children, for suit money and solicitors' fees. Appellant asked a postponement of the application for the custody of the children, and for a bill of particulars as to the charges in the amendment to the bill. In the meantime, the depositions of several witnesses had been taken and filed, and the testimony of appellant taken in part before the master, on which hearing appellant declined to answer numerous questions as to his knowledge of relations to and associations with said Mrs. A. R. Louis, for the reasons, among others, that such answers might tend to subject him to disgrace, punishment, penalty, or forfeiture, and to forfeiture of dower. The court denied the motion of appellee to compel appellant to answer said questions, and ordered appellee to file a bill of particulars as to the charges of adultery, which she filed, giving numerous times in the years 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, and 1889, and numerous places in Chicago, Rockford, and Lake Villa, Illinois, in the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin, and in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and other places in Europe, not particularly named, when and at which appellant committed adultery with Mrs. A. R. Louis, and also stating that ‘at divers times in the years 1876, 1877, and 1878,’ in Chicago, in a house occupied by a lady (naming her) as a dwelling, and ‘at other places in said city,’ he committed adultery with said lady. Long after this order appellant offered to answerthe questions as to Mrs. Louis, but, his offer not being accepted, he did not answer them. July 1, 1890, the chancellor made an order for temporary alimony of $900 for the support of appellee and the two minor children to that date, and $300 per month thereafter, $1,000 solicitors' fees, and $400 suit money for appellee, and $180 per month, commencing July 1, 1890, for the support of Susan and Madeline, until the further order of the court; but reserved the question as to the custody of the children for further consideration. From this order appellant appealed, and, after its reversal by this court, the order was affirmed October 31, 1892, by the supreme court, except as to the allowance of $180 per month for said minors. 144 Ill. 588, 32 N. E. 206. The court allowed appellee the sum of $300 to enable her to defend the appeal prosecuted from the order for her temporary alimony, from which allowance appellant also perfected an appeal to this court. This order was affirmed by this court.

‘From time to time during the fall of 1890 and the spring and summer of 1891, to June 20th, numerous depositions were taken before the master, and, on notice, before commissioners on behalf of appellant, in different parts of the United States and in Europe, and appellee amended her bill by changing the date of her separation from appellant from February 3 to February 1, 1890. This amendment was made the occasion of a general and special demurrer to the bill as amended, and a hearing before the court thereon, notwithstanding his previous full answers thereto. During this period, also, divers motions and proceedings were had before the court, among which were an order allowing appellee $900 for the purpose of taking depositions in Europe, from which appellant perfected an appeal to this court, which was subsequently affirmed, and an order, on appellant's petition, changing the venue from Judges Tuley and Horton of the circuit court of Cook county, and transferring the cause to Judge Collins. June 20, 1891, on appellant's motion, the reference was changed to Master Bass of the said circuit court, and thereafter a great amount of testimony was taken before the master, as well as depositions at different places in the United States and Europe, on behalf of both parties, and divers motions and proceedings made and taken before the chancellor, all during 1891 and early in 1892; and by agreement of the parties on February 11th, the issues having been made, the cause was set for hearing March 15, 1892, but was not then heard. Why, does not appear. In May, 1892, appellee filed a supplemental petition for alimony, suit money, and solicitors' fees pending appeal on the original order in the supreme court, but no action of the court thereon appears to have been taken, beyond a suggestion by Judge Collins to the parties to settle up between themselves. Thereafter, from time to time, up to January 2, 1893, negotiations for settlement were pending between the parties, but no results reached, and in the meantime, on October 30, 1892, the decision of the supreme court above referred to was rendered.

‘January 3, 1893, the cause, having theretofore been set for trial, came on for final hearing before Judge Collins, when appellant read to the court and filed the following stipulation, viz.: ‘State of Illinois, Circuit Court, Cook County. Adelaide M. Harding vs. George F. Harding. Petition for Separate Maintenance. When this suit for separate maintenance began, the plaintiff had in her hands a large sum of money, and property...