| |
Guiding Questions
|
What can the divorce papers of Frank Lang and his third
wife Clara Morris Lang tell us about Frank's propensity
toward violent and abusive relationships? As we asked
before: Did Frank always act like a
mean-spirited son of a bitch? Or were his most violent
and abusive behaviors limited to the immediate postwar years?
How did he treat his later wives? |
Evidence
& Interpretations
As Tom put it, it looks like Frank and Clara deserved each other.
Exactly who was at fault in this divorce action is a matter of
interpretation, but the Court decided unequivocally in favor of Frank, who initiated
the action, agreeing that Clara committed adultery, that she did not
merit alimony or attorney's fees, and that custody of Frank Lang, Jr.
should go to Frank. Final decree of divorce is dated May 5,
1892.
Why do
these documents matter? For one thing, they show that Frank
had largely gotten past the violent outbursts that had characterized his
relationship with Nellie. They reinforce the view that
Frank's explosive temper and self-destructive behaviors in the immediate
postwar years were a direct consequence of his wartime trauma, and that he healed
with the passage of time, at least to a degree.
Yet he
still ended up in a failed marriage, a 13-year relationship with
an emotionally unstable and avaricious wife. The picture of
Clara Morris Lang painted here by her neighbors and others is not flattering.
They also reveal something of the life of Frank's son Frank W. Lang --
our -- what?
Step-grandfather? Grand-cousin? Something. Without
these papers we'd never know that Frank had another kid. Tracing
his history and descendents, if any, remains a project we've yet to
undertake. (Thomas . . .)
Only once does
Clara allege physical abuse by Frank, and it's not a convincing charge. Instead, her testimony shows that she was
mainly interested in his money. Her affidavits follow a
fascinating narrative flow, with their seamless transitions from denials
of adultery and denials of her own bad marital behavior to
how much money and property Frank has and how she should get some of
it. It's a pretty transparent money-grab, and the final
judgment of the court seems pretty heartening. Sometimes
justice is served.
Documents appear in chronological sequence.
The Documents
|
Summons and Complaint
November 11, 1891
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, District Court, Fourth
Judicial Disctrict
Frank Lang, Plaintiff, vs. Clara Lang, Defendant
C O M P L A I N T
Complaining of the defendant plaintiff alleges:
I. That his name is Frank Lang and his age is 49 years, that
the defendant's name is Clara Lang, and her age is about 32 years.
II. That plaintiff and defendant intermarried at Red Wing,
Minnesota, in 1879, and that there is one child issue of said marriage,
named Frank Lang, whose age is 7 years.
III. That plaintiff and defendant have been residents of the
State of Minnesota for more than five years last past and still reside
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
IV. That plaintiff and defendant have cohabited as husband and
wife from the day of such marriage until October 19th, 1891.
V. That on said 19th of October 1891 this defendant deserted
plaintiff and has since said day committed adultery with divers persons,
and in particular on the following days, to wit:
On October
21st 1891 with a man whose name is unknown to plaintiff, on October 22nd
with a man named James Hill; and on October 24th 1891 with one Fred
Heath.
That all of
said acts were committed by the defendant without plaintiff's consent or
connivance and that this plaintiff has always been a good and faithful
husband to the defendant. [p. 2]
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the bonds of matrimony existing
between him and the defendant be dissolved and that they and each of
them be released from the obligations thereof.
That plaintiff
have the sole care and custody of their minor child Frank Lang; and for
such other and further relief as to the court may seem proper in the
premises.
Dated November
11th 1891
/s/ F J Geist, Attorney for Plaintiff,
Minneapolis, Minn.
|
|
Defendant's Response to Complaint
December 3, 1891
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin [etc.]
Clara Lang Defendant in the above entitled action for her answer to
the complaint in said action, denies each and every allegation in said
complaint contained except as herein after admitted denied or qualified.
She admits the
first four paragraphs of said complaint.
She denies
that on the first day day of October 1891 or at any other time she
deserted the plaintiff, and alleges that he the plaintiff, on said day,
ordered her, the defendant, to leave his house, and she, therefore left,
and since that time she has been living by herself and supporting
herself by her own daily labor.
She denies
that he has ever committed adultery with James Hill or Fred Heath or
anyone else at any time.
She denies
that the plaintiff has been a good and faithful husband, and alleges
that he has failed to properly support her, and that he gets intoxicated
from time to time and abuses her.
She
alleges that said plaintiff has a house and lot in the
City of Minneapolis, has money in the bank and is
earning good wages; that every thing she owns will not
exceed $50 in value and that she has no money.
Wherefore she
demands that the plaintiff take nothing by this action, and that he be
compelled to pay her a sufficient amount of money to pay her attorneys
in this action and to pay for her support during the pendency thereof
and her costs and disbursements in this action /s/
Gray & Pulliam, Attys for Defendant
Clara Lang
being first duly sworn says that she is the defendant in the foregoing
and above entitled action; that the foregoing answer is true of her own
knowledge
/s/ Clara Lang X her mark
Subscribed and
sworn to by the said Clara Lang before me this 3rd day of December 1891
/s/ E. W. Gray, Notary Public, Hennepin Co., Minn.
|
|
Affidavit of Clara Lang, Defendant
December 8, 1891
[Cover page:] For Divorce, Clara Lang X Her
Mark
Subscribed and sworn by the said Clara Lang this 8th
day of December 1891
[p. 1]
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, subscribed
& sworn in District Court, Fourth Judicial District
Frank Lang, Plaintiff vs Clara Lang, Defendant
Clara Lang being first duly sworn says she is the wife of Frank Lang and
that the said Frank Lang has commenced an action for Divorce from her in
this District Court of Hennepin County Minnesota entitled as [----]
That in his complaint for Divorce her said husband accuses her of having
committed adultery with James Hill and Fred Heath and others whose
houses are by the said husband unknown. That said accusation is wholly
untrue. She does not know any one named James Hill or Fred Heath. And
she never committed adultery with such men or either of them or any
other man or men at any time or place. That she has always been true to
her marriage vows and [p. 2] obligations. That she has made and served
an answer to her husband's complaint for divorce in which she has denied
under oath the said charges of adultery. That her said husband owns a
house and lot in Minneapolis Minnesota worth the sum of $1,800 and the
same is clear from all encumbrances except a mortgage of $250. That
this affiant and her said husband did live together in said house. But
that on or about the 19th day of October 1891 her said
husband ordered her to leave the house and threatened to put her out by
force if she did not go. She therefore was compelled to leave her house
and has been living in rented rooms ever since. In addition to said
house and lot her said husband has money in the bank and he is an able
bodied man a cooper by trade. Has steady work and earns from twelve to
fifteen dollars per week. That the only property that affiant owns is a
lot out in the country a mile or more from New Brighton, Ramsey County
Minnesota and [p. 3] said lot is not worth more than twenty five
dollars. The only other property she owns is a few household good and
furniture worth not to exceed twenty five dollars. That she has no
money and no means of getting money except her own labor.
That when her
said husband ordered her to leave house she asked him if he would give
her some money and he replied "No, you can go and make your own money."
That she is not able to work very hard. And is in almost destitute
circumstances.
She has not
paid her attorneys anything as she had nothing to pay. She had to
borrow money of her sister to pay the rent of the one room in which she
lives. She therefore asks that her said husband may be ordered by the
Court to pay her a sufficient amount of money to support her during the
pending of this action. And a suitable amount for her to pay her
attorneys for defending her in said action.
[p. 4 and later pages, if
any, missing from file.]
/s/ Clara Lang X
Her Mark
|
|
Affidavit of Frank Lang, Plaintiff
December 12, 1891
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, District
Court, Fourth Judicial District
Frank Lang, Plaintiff against Clara Lang, Defendant
Frank Lang being first duly sworn on oath doth say and depose, that he
is the plaintiff in the above entitled action, that he has read the
affidavit of Clara Lang, the defendant, in support of a motion for
alimony and attorney fees during the pendency of said action; that said
affidavit and every part thereof, excepting the statement that this
affiant is a cooper, is wholly false and untrue; affiant further says,
that the only property affiant owns is a part of a lot with a small
house thereon, which said lot and house is worth not more than One
thousand Dollars, and that affiant is now indebted thereon in the sum of
Two hundred and fifty Dollars, on which sum affiant is compelled to pay
interest, and affiant further says and deposes that he has no money
whatever, either in any bank or otherwise, and earns only the sum of
eight ($8.00) dollars per week, and that he is compelled to pay for his
own board and for the board of his minor child Frank Lang all the monies
he so earns; and affiant further says and deposes that on the 19th
day of October 1891 defendant Clara Lang voluntarily and with out the
consent or connivance and against affiants express wishes and request
left the house aforesaid and took along all the furniture excepting one
table and three chairs and one stove and has ever since positively
refused to live with said affiant and affiant further says that he never
at any time ordered defendant Clara Lang to leave said house and home
but on the contrary at times too numerous to mention [p. 2] he requested
the defendant to stay at home. Affiant further says that he paid Clara
Lange in the [----] worth $300.
/s/ Franz Lange
Subscribed & sworn before me this 12th
day of December 1891
/s/ Frank J. Geist, Notary Public, Hennepin Co
Minn
|
|
Affidavit of Christina Lovejoy and Julia J. Alexander
December 12, 1891
Christina Lovejoy and Julia J. Alexander being first severally sworn
doth say and depose each for herself that they and each of them have for
more than a year last past been neighbors of Frank Lang and Clara Lang,
that on October the 19th and while Frank Lang was absent from
the house the said Clara Lang came with an express wagon to Frank Lang's
house and assisted in loading the furniture and things in said house on
said express wagon and that Frank Lang was not around the house when the
said furniture was loaded on said wagon and taken away, further affiants
say not.
Subscribed and sworn before me this 12th day of
December 1891
/s/ Christina A Lovejoy
/s/ Julia J. Alexander
/s/
Frank J. Geist, Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
|
|
Deposition of Helen Stay
December 12, 1891
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, District
Court, Fourth Judicial District
Frank Lang, Plaintiff, against Clara Lang,
Defendant
HELEN STAY being first duly sworn doth say and depose that on October 19th
1891 she was present at the house of Frank Lang when Clara Lang in the
absence of Frank Lang took away and moved the furniture contained in
said house; that on said day the said Clara
Lang said to this affiant, that she moved away from Frank Lang's house
because, if she lived apart from him, she could have all the fun she
wanted and could go out whenever she liked.
/s/ Helen
Stay
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of
December 1891
/s/ Frank J. Geist, Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minn.
|
|
Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Affidavit
December 18, 1891
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin [etc.]
Now comes the plaintiff and for reply to defendants
answer herein denies each and every allegation matter and thing therein
contained not hereinafter especially admitted or qualified. Admits that
his the owner of a part of a lot and a house thereon in Minneapolis,
Minnesota on which he owes Two hundred and fifty ($250.00) Dollars.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands the judgment prayed for in his
complaint.
Dated this 18th day of December 1891
/s/ F. J. Geist, Attorney for Plaintiff
|
|
Court Hearing (Temporary Judgment)
December 19, 1891
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin [etc.]
On this 19th day of December 1891 the above entitled
action coming up for a hearing on the motion of the
defendant for temporary alimony and attorney fees.
And the Court having heard the complaint and answer and
the affidavit filed in support and in defense of said
motion and being fully advised in its premises, doth
order that the plaintiff Frank Lang pay to the defendant
Clara Lang the sum of Two Dollars per week commencing on
Saturday the 26th day of December 1891 and
each and every Saturday thereafter until the trial of the above entitled
action. And that said Frank Lang pay to Gray T. Pullison attorneys
of said Clara Lang the sum of Twenty-Five dollars
attorney fees payable [p. 2] as follows. The sum
of Five Dollars on or before the 5th of January 1892.
The sum of $10 on or before the 25th of
January 1892, and the balance of $10, on or before the 15ty of February
1892 at any event to be paid before trial.
By the Court
/s/ Judge
|
|
Divorce Decree and Custody Judgment
May 5, 1892
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin [etc.]
[Divorce granted, bonds of matrimony dissolved, and
further ordered] that plaintiff have the custody care and control of
Frank Lang the minor child of said parties.
/s/ Clerk District Court
/s/ Deputy
|
|
Final Decree and Judgment
May 5, 1892
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin [etc.]
The above
entitled case having been duly brought on for trail at a General Term of
said Court, held at Minneapolis, Minnesota on the ___ day of May 1892,
F. J. Geist appearing as attorney for plaintiff, there being default on
the part of defendant.
In appraising
that the summons and complaint were duly served on the defendant, that
defendant duly answered thereto, and that plaintiff replied thereto and
upon all the papers & proceedings had in said cause and upon the
evidence adduced on the part of the plaintiff, the Court finds as conclusion of fact:
That
plaintiff's age is 49 years and that the defendant 32 years, that
plaintiff and defendant intermarried at Red Wing, Minnesota, during the
year of 1879; that both plaintiff have been for more than 5 years last
past and still are residents of the State of Minnesota; that there is
one child issue of said marriage, named Frank Lang, aged 7 years, who
resides with the plaintiff herein; that the
defendant has committed adultery with one James Hill on the 24th day of
October 1891 at Minneapolis, Minnesota; that the defendant has [p. 2]
committed adultery with divers persons during the month of October 1891;
that the plaintiff is a proper and suitable person to have to sole care
and custody of the minor child Frank Lang.
The Court
finds as conclusions of Law: 1) That the plaintiff is entitled to
have judgment that the bonds of matrimony now existing between the
plaintiff and defendant be and hereby are dissolved; 2) That the
plaintiff have the sole care and custody of the minor child Frank Lang.
Let judgment
be entered accordingly.
Dated May 5, 1892.
By the Court
/s/ Henry Yl Weicks [?], Judge
|
|
|