A CURIOUS DIVORCE CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8788, 16 April 1907, Page 4

A CURIOUS DIVORCE CASE.

’ Mrs Ida Erdmau, -wife cf a prcmlut Denver man, claims that hcri; u.'liand divorced her ’ becau-e she refused to believe in Mormouism and polygamy. She says that ho told her he could love six women as his wives just as easy as he could love one. It seems from the lady’s story that a Mormon elder from Provo, Utah, one Abram P. Acord, urged both herself and her husband to become polygamist as lately as August 14, 1905, in spite of the Federal laws against it. She also says that Erdmau and G. B. Charleston, who is now Mrs Erdman No. 4, conspired to get rid of her so that they could marry. Mrs Ida Erdman, who is wife No. 3, is

trying to Imre the decree sot aside. Her husband got it a year ago. Erdmau got Iris divorce on the ; ground of “fiery temper” and ! “ cruelty,” However, Mrs Erdmau No. 3 says polygamy was the rock E on which tiieir domestic craft sjfiit. A STRANGE LETTER. Excerpts from a letter follow | “Dear Brother Erdmau, —I know S you are sincere, and that in time the truth will bo unfolded to your perfect understanding. The more you know of the work the better you will like it. But don’t get discouraged if you cant’ grasp it all at once for it is a growth and, like all other things takes time. Wo all felt that you were doing remarkably well upon the good work and God will

bless you. “Say, Sister Erdmau, are you converted to polygamy yet ? If not,

yon just look the matter fairly and squarely in the face, and lay off that spirit of jealousy, which retards all spiritual growth, and you will know that the principle is God-given. Now I will ask you to look tho matter over from all sides and tell me why God so ordained this, if He expected His children to he monogamists? “ I shall await your answer on these questions. The principle of

polygamy is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, then the Latter Day Saints are a pernicious people and without power to save souls, but if

right and God-given, then wo, of all people, are God’s chosen. The nations of the earth will yet demand that the principle be restored .and

judiciously practised. It is the only, moans whereby the evils of the day may be adjudicated.”

“Polygamy,” said Mrs Ida Erdman, ‘ ‘ was the rock upon which the matrimonial barque of Erdman and myself wore stranded, and I uoW propose to bo justified before the world. When I refused to adopt a belief in Mormonism and polygamy at Erdman's solicitation he said that it was all jealousy on my part, and that ho could love half a dozen women as wives. My refusal, I suppose, was my ‘ fiery temper, ’ of which lie complained in his divorce suit, and the ‘ cruelty ’ to which ho referred.

The letter was written to him, and proves conclusively that ho openly espoused the Mormon belief. Why, he used to make one receive these people in our home and allow them to hold meetings every Thursday evening. That is what Acord refers to when he says, ‘ I seem to be getting ready for your place.’ I have not the slightest doubt that if I had been won over to the belief, as Erdman wished, his divorce suit would .never had been filed. He would have boon very well content to have had mo for a wife, and perhaps have persuaded Mrs E. G. Charleston to live with-him at the same time.

1 ‘ But, ’ ’ continued Mrs Erdniau, with her eves flashing, “ I am not that sort of a woman. I may have been unfortunately married before, but, just the same,' I believe in fidelity when one is married, and my unfortunate experience was not my fault in any way. Erdmau knew it, too, just as well as anything. Moreover, since ho was given a decree of divorce on the ground of my cruelty and t( mper, I’d like to know what woman would not lose patience when she had polygamy preached to her day in and day out ? Mrs Erdmau’s sensational charges against her former husband are made in connection with the petition she has filed in the District Court to have the 'decree of divorce granted him a year ago annulled and which will come before Judge Shattock for hearing soon.

All Erdman’s allegations, she avers, were simply a conspiracy between him and her warm friend, Mrs G. E. Charleston, now Mrs Erdmau Eo. 4 to give him his freedom that lie might marry Mrs Charleston, as ho'could not induce his wife to believe in polygamy. The former wife declares that she once broached the subject of her husband’s inclination toward Mormouism to Mrs Charleston, and asked what she thought of it. “She"declared that she thought it all right if one really believed in it, ” said Mrs Erdmau; ‘ ‘ but I doubt if she would give the same answer since she claims Erdmau for husband. ’ ’ DESERTED CHILDREN. According to Mrs Erdmau the third, the most deplorable action on the part of her former friend, Mrs Charleston, was the desertion of her own two little babes for Erdmau. When Charleston got his divorce he was given the custody of the boy and the mother of the little girls; but Mrs Charleston, upon becoming Mrs Erdmau, allowed someone in Missouri to adopt the child. At the time Erdmau was given his divorce Mrs Ida Erdmau was allowed about 400 , dollars alimony, which, she says, was a mere pittance, considering that her money had started the sugar grinding business which he owns at No. 1G26, Blake street. Mrs Ida Erdmau’s motive for 'reopening the case is, she says, vindication of her own character. She was made out such a termagant, she declares, that she wants the stigma taken from her name. That she would have been granted the divorce, she says, she will prove.