SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University

Downing therefore asked for divorce on the same grounds that Susanna had claimed: extreme
cruelty. And he also asked that she be required to pay him the sum of $584 plus his furniture and
whatever else the Court could provide for “equitable relief.”
Susanna Downing denied William Downing’s claims, and it appeared that the case was
headed for a lengthy series of legal claims and counter-claims. But then William Downing
withdrew his entire petition, and as quickly as it had begun, it was over. On March 23, 1899, the
Clay County district judge granted the divorce on the grounds that Susanna Downing had
originally claimed: “The Court further finds upon the evidence adduced that said defendant has
been guilty of extreme cruelty toward said plaintiff as claimed in her said petition and that
because of said acts of extreme cruelty, said plaintiff is entitled to be divorced from said
defendant on account of the fault of said defendant.” 152
But in a twist, the judge also noted a rather surprising property settlement. William
Downing would be paid $100, considerably smaller than the $584 he had asked for, but Susanna
Downing, now once again Susanna Sanders, would be responsible for all family debts. In
addition, in one of those dreary lists that tend to accompany divorce decrees, the judge
enumerated the property to which William was entitled: three hogs, one cherry bedroom set, one
spring, mattress, bedding, one stove and pipe, ten chairs, three window blinds and fixtures, one
poker table, one rocking chair, one hammer, two saws, one water bucket, two spittoons, and one
wash set. What had happened? It appears that William and Susanna Downing were probably
guilty of the collusion that district judges worried about. In all likelihood, William had agreed to
drop his counter suit in exchange for a reasonable property settlement.
152 Downing v Downing, Clay Center District Court, Case No. 4549, State of Kansas (District Court Journal Entry
March 24, 1899).
67