USGenWeb Log Welcome to
Montgomery County, Indiana

INGenWeb Logo
About Me!

Bible Records
Court Records Diaries & Journals
Family Fact Sheets
History Letters


Reunions School

Nancy Franklin BOOHER vs. Ephrain Booher

Source: Crawfordsville Daily News-Review, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, Indiana
Jan 30, 1903

Mrs. Nancy Booher, the plaintiff in the Darlington divorce case, escaped breaking into jail today by the skin of her teeth. For gross contempt of Court, Judge West ordered her commital but her friends succeeded in bringing the woman to her senses and the order was rescinded. In her complaint Mrs. Booher alleges that she was warned by "someone" to watch her husband if she had any doubts as to his infidelity. Upon cross examination Attorney Whittington demanded the identity of this unknown informant. The witness declined to reveal this source of information and Mr. Whittington appealed to the Court. Judge West then tried to get an answer but to no purpose. Mrs. Booher stated that it would compromise a friend and that the revelation would be a breach of lodge trust. She had promised not to divulge the name and declared her intention to keep that promise. The court finally lost patience and gave the stubborn witness a choice between answering and going to jail. She chose the latter alternative but the Court consented that the order be not executed until the examination was finished. As the clock struck 12 Attorney Whittington brought his severe cross examination to a close and the Court gave her another chance to answer. She refused, however, and the Judge remanded her to the custody of the sheriff until she should choose to answer. "I'll die in jail then" was her parting retort but her friends and attorneys gathered about her and after much advice and counseling she agreed to give up the information. Her decision was carried to the Court and he consented to a stay of execution. Being put back on the stand after dinner Mrs. Booher said Mrs. Laura Booher had given her some "tips" regarding her husband's actions. Acting on these she followed Eph one night to the home of his alleged amoreta, Mary Vaughan, and saw him enter the house. She waited for him to reppear but was driven away by cold. Some time later she accused Eph of his infidelity and he was brazen in his expressions of Mary Vaughan. He confessed that he always had a partiality for fat women and likened her to a stack of bones. Among other wrongs she said her step sons had cursed and abused her and that in their division of property some years ago she got the worst of it in everything except pillow cases. The inventory showed 11 and they took 5 apiece and cut the other in two. After their last separation Eph is said to have asserted that the infernal regions might freeze over before she would get any of his property. Mrs. Booher lost her temper under the fire of cross examination and made some damaging statements. When asked how much money she had when they were married Mrs. Booher confessed to the possession of $9. This caused some amusement whereupon she volunteered that it was more than Eph had. Being questioned on this score she asserted that her husband's assets at that time amounted to only $3. There was considerable spice mixed with the testimony of Mrs. Booher and the audience took it all in with evident relish. The defendant is taking his inning this afternoon. -- transcribed by kbz

Source: Crawfordsville Daily News Review Jan 28, 1903

The Booher divorce case is proving a right good drawing card and the court room has been filled today with spectators, expectantly awaiting for the evidence to develop some rich morsels. Up to noon there had been some disappointment on that score. The bulk of the evidence has been pretty dry. Severalw itnesses testified that the domestic horizon of the Boohers had been more or less clouded for years. Others were introduced to throw some light upon Eph's financial standing. The star witness of the morning was Art Franklin, a step son of the defendant who made his home iwth them for several years after his mother's marriage. He admitted that the relations between Mrs. Booher and himself had been somewhat strained and told of the pleasantries that had occurred. On one occasion Booher struck witness with a broom and on another his head was made the target for a rock. Again the defendant chased him to the barn and aimed a blow at him with his fist but missed fire and struck the barn door instead. It is not recorded what Booher said when he made this mistake. He testified that he had seen Booher strike his mother and that on one occasion his step papa got out the family razor and declared that he would end the motter then and there. He didn't however, for the good reason that young Franklin and his ma took to the timber. At a trial in Darlington witness declared he heard Booher call his wife a l ar. On cross examination Franklin mixed up his dates somewhat. He admitted to drinking some but denied that he had ever gone home with the "snakes. -- transcribed by kbz

Source: Daily News Review Feb 2, 1903 p 1

The costs in the Booher divorce case, which was tried last week amount to $269 not including attorney fees and the salary of the court. Of this $139 is for witness fees, $75 for court costs and $55 for actual court expenses. In giving Mr. Booher the decree the costs were thrown upon his wife, but as she has no property, the witnesses are out their fees and expenses and the county is left to hold the bag for the balance. Mrs. Booher received a judgment for $125 alimony but her attonreys will doubtless attach this for their services. Divorces come high oftimes but some people must have 'em. -- transcribed by kbz

Source: same -- There was a general rejoicing at Darlington Saturday evening when the news reached there that "Doc" Booher had won in the divorce suit. He had the sympathies of the townspeople almost to a unit and from all reports Darlington has experience no such joy since James A. Mount was nominated for Governor.

Data contained within this website may only be used with permission of the submitter, for non-commercial research and educational activities, and for personal genealogical information.

Data contained within this website may only be used with permission of the copyright holder(s), for non-commercial research and educational activities, and for personal genealogical information. © 2014 by Karen Zach, and licensed to the Indiana GenWeb (INGenWeb) Project and the USGenWeb Project. May be used in personal research with a citation.

This page created:  16-Aug-2017