This from Court records 1922:State of Indiana County of Vigo In the Vigo Circuit Court February Term, 1922
Lena M. Gemmaka vs. George E. GemmakaDIVORCE
Plaintiff complaining of the defendant and for cause ofaction thereof alleges tht she is now and has been for more than two years last past a bonifide resident of the State of Indiana and county of Vigo. That plaintiff and defendant were duly married on the 31st day of May, 1919, and lived and cohabited together as husband and wife until the 31st day of January, 1922, on which date they separated and since which time they have not lived nor cohabited together as husband and wife. That during their married life the defendant was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment toward this plaintiff in this to-wit:
That plaintiff’s former name was Lena M. LaMay. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the court for an absolute divorce from said defendant;that her former name be restored to her, for costs of this action and for all other full and proper relief. Beecher & Beecher Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Lena M. Gemmaka, being duly sworn upon her oath says that she is the plaintiff in the above entitled cause of action for divorce;That she is now and has been for more than two years last past a bonifide resident of the State of Indiana and County of Vigo, during which time she has resided at the following places: 624 North Fourth St., Terre Haute, Indiana
That her occupation is that of a housekeeper
SignedLena M. Gemmaka Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of March, 1922. Samuel E., Beecher, Notary Public, My commission expires May 26, 1923.
ANSWER AND CROSS COMPLAINT.
Comes now the defendant in the above entitled cause and for answer to plaintiff’s complaint herein denies each and every material allegation therein contained.
Sweet, Littlefield, Shipley, Attys for defendant CROSS COMPLAINT Comes now the defendant and by way of cross complaint against the plaintiff herein alleges and says that he and this cross defendant were duly married on the 31st day of May 1918 and lived and cohabited together as husband and wife until on or about the 1st day of February 1922 at which time they separated and have not since lived or cohabited together as husband and wife.
Cross complanant further avers that while he and cross defendant did live together as husband and wife that said cross defendant insisted on residing with her uncle and aunt and with her two brothers in a place not suitable for cross complainant and cross defendant to live as husband and wife, but that cross complainant repeatedly suggested and urged that they move to better and more suitable surrounding but that cross defendant refused so to do and continued to associate with women of bad repute for chastity in spite of the objections of cross complainant, and repeatedly made visits to the places of bad repute for morality, continually quarreled with cross complainant, and rendered his life with her at said abode so uncomfortable that he was compelled to leave said premises and at all times assured cross defendant that he desired to live with her if she would come with him to more suitable and decent surroundings but that she refused.
Wherefore cross complainant prays that he may be granted an absolute divorce fro cross defendant, costs of this action and for all other proper relief.
Sweet, Littlefield & Shipley. Attys for cross complainant