From the Archives!

Welcome back to Roots to Rafters. I'm Rachel and today we're coming to you from the Colorado State Archives in downtown Denver. A place where history isn't just stored, it breathes. I'm here with my mom Becky, my sister Elise, and my cousin Gracie, and Luke, my co-host. And together we're digging into one of the most defining chapters of our great, great, grandmother Ida's story, her divorce cases. This is where the paper trail meets the personal. The moment Ida's courage wasn't just whispered through family stories, but written, signed, and stamped into history. We're hoping to uncover not only what happened, but what it meant for her, for her children and for the generations of women who came after her. As we turn each fragile page, which we were instructed to be very, very careful with, we're reminded that sometimes the fight for freedom doesn't happen on battlefields. It happens in courtrooms, in kitchens, and in quiet acts of survival. And as we begin here, I thought it would be interesting to go around to each one of us and see what questions you have, and what are you hoping to uncover? What are you curious about? So I'm going to start off with Elise, hopefully you have a question ready. What are you currently curious about with what we're going to uncover here? Oh, a specific question, I think, I like doing research on history and haven't done them in a while, because I'm researching other things, but I think it's cool to think about that this is our family, and so does any details and also understanding that there's story and what actually happened, and the personal lives of our family members behind these documents too. This is helpful for factual evidence, but also you never know. I mean, one of the articles we're talking about was like very much written from a bias, so I think taking it from a balanced perspective will be good, but not any specific questions just excited to learn whatever we can. I guess I'm kind of in the same way I don't have specific questions, but we can understand it even more than we do now, and maybe a few of the questions that are in the cracks that I think between the things we know and the things we don't know, so I hope we get some answers. Yeah, I know it's legal documents, so sometimes it's kind of dry. Yeah. Oh, we got our resident paralegal over here to make sense of it all. Yeah, you can help decipher. We don't do anything with the worst proceedings, so we'll see. Well, you have more experience in it than we do. What about you, Gracie? I'm definitely just interested to learn more about it, and also that time period and what exactly was going on because the articles we had found did seem very biased, so I'm interested to see what that's going to translate to us now in this modern day, how we think of things and how back then it that wasn't really something people, the whole reason you're doing this podcast is to show light and all that kind of stuff. The one thing I am really interested to get from the last one that we talked about was how I think it was Thomas was trying to get custody of the kids, but it was only the daughters I think, but not the two younger ones, so I'm kind of interested as to why if there is anything about that, because I'm like, that seems fishy, but I guess we'll see if we can. There was probably some custody of things that happened after the first doors, and then again after the second doors. The one case file that I know exists that we don't have access to yet is probably the one that you're most curious about. I have to get a court order to allow me to get access to them, which I think I'll be able to do. We just have to go through the legal process, but I guess because there's really sensitive information about it, there's certain case files that they, you know, for Colorado law, for divorce cases after 100 years, you can get access to come public record, which is why we're able to get access to them, which is crazy to think like these documents are more than 100. I mean, there's 120 some years that these documents are, which is wild, and why we have acid free papers in front of us. So we have access to these files, but I have to get some special, which I plan on doing this time, but I'm sure there's going to be some discussion about, well, I guess I should say I'm sure, yeah, hopefully there will be some discussion, but Luke, what are you curious about, I just like old stuff, yeah, well, the microphone obviously won't be, but, yeah, so we'll be bringing you along with us in the journey of discovery, we'll each be doing some research in the files that we have, we have some physical files, we have some microfiche, and we also have index, which will give us the information we need to have to go on another rabbit trail with the Denver County records, so stay tuned for follow up episode, excited and also anxious and curious, and a lot of different emotions when you're looking at information like this. Oh, I guess I didn't say what I was curious about, I'm really curious about what you have in your hands Elise, I have nothing in my hands, well in front of you, sorry, we can rely on you for accuracy, it's a little sister, yeah, but you know what, I've discovered, as I've dug into the family history, I discovered that she married and divorced our great-great-grandfather or great-grandfather in your case, twice, married and divorced twice, and then she ended up with the husband that my grandfather knew, and what he was told was his grandfather passed away from the Spanish Blue, and she then remarried eventually to the man that he was he knew as his grandfather, but in between what we now know is not a marriage that ended by death but ended by divorces, we now know that there was a third marriage, second husband, and that that one only lasted about 14 months, so that is one that I'm really curious about because I'm wondering if that could be because she needed a marriage to get one of the properties or if it was more violence and she had had her fill of that and wasn't going to tolerate it anymore, so she didn't let much time pass, so that's one of the things I'm most curious about, but I think you said it best to just trying to understand Ida and understand where she came from and what she persevered through that made her the woman that we are getting to know and love that even though we never met her, so that isn't a question, it's I just don't know, all of this is pain, it's interesting for us to look at now, but you know, if there's pain and only suffering, trauma, just a lot of sadness that it's wrapped up in these documents so as interested as I am, you know, there's a heaviness in my heart, just being reminded that even I don't know all the specifics just knowing what all these papers work in this. Yeah, well, I think as we're all peeling back the layers of pain and suffering, I think it's important to remember too that life is full of challenges and things that we struggle with because of choices we make, because of things that are done to us, but the main thing to always remember, especially if you're finding yourself right now in situations where you feel stuck or, you know, there's things that you're struggling with as it doesn't end here, so her life didn't end in these documents, her life didn't end in the pain and pain, you know, trial by fire, you know, the strength of who we've become gets forged in the fire, and so I think that as much as this is the depths of her pain, you know, remembering the hope that, you know, we know how this story ends and a lot of people are going through things that you can't see the other side, but we know that there's hope on the other side of these documents and there's hope on the other side of whatever you're going through or we're going through and it doesn't end here, so with that, we can dig in. I know you started taking sneak peek, do you want to share some of what you've been discovering? I've just been anticipating learning things, so you put it right in front of me, you know, last one I'm not going to be excited, it's like Christmas morning, peeling back the wrapping. So Ida Hazlitt was her name and this court case, she was a plaintiff and William Hazlitt is the defendant, took place on April, doesn't have a day, 1912, took place on April, 1912. So her attorney was John F. Mulaney, he's going under person ancestor, well he is from Chicago, so a big connection. The defendant was non-person, but appearing by his attorney HK Wing, the court was without a jury, having heard all the evidence and the arguments of the council found finds upon due consideration that the said defendant is guilty, of the matters charged in this complaint. It served upon the said defendant by acknowledgement of service on the back of the summons by the defendant William Hazlitt, a knowledge received of summons and copy of complaint. So he wasn't at the court hearing. So this must have been a complaint against him which was used as evidence in the divorce case. That's the time of the document to give divorce, hearing without a jury. It's interesting I didn't realize in a divorce case that there's a guilty verdict, I thought it was just the end. You probably always had to have a reason to prove that they're guilty of the reason. I see, okay. And that was until the 1970s, believe you. I knew that. I just didn't realize that it was there, vying that the reason was met the requirements, but I didn't know they would actually determine one party guilty or not, kind of interesting. Well, I think it could have changed over 10 years ago. Right. This one here is called the verdict. They were married on Valentine's Day. I don't know. Oh, yeah. I didn't even put the two and two together, but that's what I have here, February 14, 1911. Interesting. April 1912. I wonder if that was a romantic gesture. Yeah. I remember how long they knew each other before they got married, if it was more like a whirlwind. Like, it's Valentine's Day, let's get married. The said defendant has wholly failed to provide a reasonable support for his wife. The said plaintiff, although said defendant has all of the time been in good bodily health. So, she's like, he could have been helping. He doesn't have any health concerns, so there's no excuses for not supporting his family. So, in this document, it says further find that the defendant, William Haslet, although being in good bodily health has failed to make a reasonable provision for the support of his family, for the space of one year next proceeding, the commencement of this action. So, that's what they found guilty of, and what Mom was saying earlier is, like, these other things are crossed off, and a lot of, on this document, things are crossed off, and you think about, you don't have a word document to backspace, so they just cross things off if it doesn't apply, probably. So, it seems like the only thing she brought against him probably was not providing reasonable provision. So, it seems like there was only three options for getting a divorce, and that was one of them. So, that makes me wonder if this was a financial marriage for property, because they had to have a reason, so maybe that's just a reason they chose. Because she married the, Fred, the guy she stayed with, like, really short after, so maybe she had a, they married for financial reasons to acquire the property, and then she ended up falling for someone, and having real feelings for him, although I don't know, the, the, very 14th date makes you wonder, it's all speculation, but it is good to hear that at least there's not abuse that she's proclaiming hopefully, right, right, because she made a step in the right direction, yeah, so that's basically declaring that the bonds of matrimony are dissolved, it's crazy that those, they don't, I guess when I think about 120-year-old documents makes me think they're going to be like, kind of like, I mean, I was expecting them to look more like those, yeah, where, like, browning and stuff, but that looks like crisp, and almost looks like the day it was, oh. So this document says, comes now the above name defendant by H. K. Wing, his attorney, and his attorney, and for answer, the plaintiffs complaint alleging. He admits that allegations and paragraphs numbered first and second contained. He denies each and every other allegation and plaintiffs complaint contained, so seems like there were other complaints. Therefore, having fully answered plaintiffs complaint, defendant prays that he may go hence without day, don't know what that means, go, go hence without day, that's what it's like. Yeah. So it's not, is that short thing was the verdict? Oh, an attorney knew what I was going to say. It means that a legal or legislative proceeding has concluded with no future date set or follow up signifying either a final dismissal or the end of a session. I guess that's a much faster way of saying that. Yeah. Is there, like, complete? Well, it's talking about this paragraph, so that is interesting, I'm not going to jump the head, noted, question is noted, well, this is power of attorney. That means you sign up for someone else to represent you. To all whom these presents may come greeting, be it known that, whereas my wife, Ida, has left. So this is from William. So he gave the power of attorney to his attorney and said that was a letter with him as his testimony. Exactly. Whereas my wife, Ida, has left of Colorado Springs, Colorado, has begun or is about to begin proceedings against me in the district court of the fourth judicial district within and for the county of El Paso in the state of Colorado for divorce. Now therefore, I, the undersigned William Haslet, El Paso County in state of Colorado, do hear by a point in constitute, oh, it's just appointing him as power of attorney. The full power to do for me in the premises, whatever I might have power to do if personally present and to file an answer for me and said proceedings, admitting plaintiff's complaint on non-support only than guarding me against alimony and costs. So we didn't guard him against the court costs. Why would that guard him against alimony who wasn't supporting his family? Is he saying that like, he's trusting that his lawyer will do a good job, I guess, to not give him alimony or a good job, his attorney will guard him. Yeah. So, the next one, this is summons divorce law of 1893 revised, so this is a summons. The defendant named, above named, Ida greeting, you are hereby required to appear in an action brought against you by the above named plaintiff in the district court and answer the complaint. They're in within 30 days after the service here of, if served within the state of Colorado or served out of the state of Colorado or by publication within 50 days after the service here above, exclusive of the day of service or set up action may be regularly set for trial to the same as though such appearance had been made and issue had been joined on such complaint. This said action is brought by plaintiff to obtain a decree of divorce dissolving the bonds of matrimony now existing between plaintiff and defendant on the ground of non-support drunkenness and cruelty. Okay. As will more fully appear from a plaintiff, from complaint and said action to which references here are made in a copy of which is here attached, which like, that means she did bring that against him. But he wasn't found guilty of it, which is another woman not being believed. Yeah. Like, can you imagine like, going through that and I mean, that's about a hundred and twenty year old thing that's still happening every day that wouldn't have believed. Yeah, so she brought all of those complaints against him, but the only thing that was found, he was found guilty of was non-support because drunkenness, one of the non-support drunkenness and cruelty, not in the other document, it was just cruelty was an option, non-support and then the non-support and disordered an absent himself from the plaintiff without reasonable cause for the space of one year. That's the end of that one. I think so. So does it not say they don't have any documents about, it's just like, this was the complaint and this was the determination they don't have any like testimonies from Ida. Wow. Since Thomas and Ida's second divorce. January 27th, 1909, and this is the complaint, comes now the plaintiff Ida Heaney for cause of action against the defendant Thomas Heaney. She is now and has now been for one year, last past, okay, she's been a resident El Paso County and the state of Colorado, they are husband and wife and they were married at the time of the 19th, but we'll Colorado on the 15th day of February 1907, another near Valentine's Eve. Was what was the date? December 15th. Oh, wow. But Ida alleges ever since the marriage she has conducted herself towards the defendant as a faithful and durable wife, the plaintiff alleges that the marriage vows an obligation and notwithstanding the marriage and vow obligations, the defendant has been and is guilty of extreme and repeated acts of cruelty toward this plaintiff said extreme and repeated acts of cruelty consisting in striking and beating plaintiff, in cursing her and swearing at her and calling her by blasphemous and vittor, vittorporous names. How do you spell that? V-I-T-U-P-E-R-O-U-S and making false accusations against her chastity. Um, thanks, um, plaintiff further alleges that the defendant, although in good bodily health, has failed neglected and refused to provide adequately for it all towards plaintiff's support. Ida further alleges that she now has with her and in her custody two minor children of plaintiffs and defendants, be gotten in a former marriage to with Ira H.6 and Elmer H5, which said children she has at all times here to four provided and cared for. Ida further alleges that the defendant is now employed and has been for a number of months and that he receives a monthly salary of $75 per month with his board and lodging, living large. Wow. But Ida therefore prays that she be decreed to have the care and custody of the said minor children in that she have an order from this honorable court against the defendant that he pay a reasonable sum of money for temporary alimony during the pendency of this suit and that she be given permanent alimony in a monthly sum of $25 per month. It's a third of this humbly income. It's a good thing she was a gardener and further that the defendant ordered to pay into court a recent military fees for plaintiffs attorney and that he pay the cost of this suit and that she, Ida, he need be divorced from said times he need and their marriage be held for not signed by Ida. Oh, is it signed by me? It's the hammer handbrake. Yeah. Oh, can you see? Yeah. Pretty good, not as good as the court person. Pretty good. Wow, she touched that paper. Crazy. Can we have like a movie moment where I can like touch the paper and also get like all these flashbacks of like all her memories and just like, I start living her life. Oh my gosh, it's so fragile. Wrong. Plaintiff therefore prays that she may be decreed to have the care and custody. It's crazy. Encouraging because she survived. Yes. And she was brave. There's a lot of women didn't leave that. Yeah, even just going to court and standing there and knowing you weren't going to be believed to. Especially him questioning her custody, like, that's such a go-to thing that deflecting. Yeah. Well, and she did have the second or the last child in between the marriages. So, I wonder if some of what he was saying to her was that that wasn't his or something. Then you fought so hard to get custody of him, to put them in an orphanage. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe that was his revenge. Well, if not knowing if it was his kid, so just put him in an orphanage. So this is the decree, and this is the second day of March 1909. And the court haven't heard all the evidence and the arguments of counsel find upon due consideration that side-definite is guilty of the matter's charge in the complaint. And it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, the court so finding that a summons was regularly issued in his cause and served upon a defendant. And the defendant has failed to appear. One of them, he was in prison, she, like, he got arrested in Boulder, I think. And-- Want to place to get arrested? Yeah. Well, I think he was working in Boulder, and then he got arrested. And I think it was related to, like, something that he did to her, and she found the complaint, I believe. So this is the plaintiff and defendant, a contract of marriage was solemnized in the state of Colorado on her about the 15th day of January 1907. And there has been a wife and since that, since said marriage, the said defendant has been guilty of extreme and repeated acts of cruelty towards the plaintiff, that said, matters alleged approved in behalf of the plaintiff, and are sufficient in law to entitle her to the relief prayed for in her complaint. The court further finds that said parties had the issue of their marriage to children now living to wit. Ira age 6 and Elmer age 5, the motion of our L Chambers attorney for said plaintiff that is ordered by the court that a degree be granted and entered here and in accordance with a pair of said plaintiffs to the plaintiff. In a circle ordered by the court that the bonds of matchmoney here to poor and now existing between said plaintiff, Ira Haney and Thomas Haney B, hereby dissolve and that said parties are, and each of them is freed and absolutely released there from, and that every duty right and claims occurring to either of said parties by reason of said marriage shall henceforth cease and determine. It sounds like this is the decree, so even though she listed other things, it was the cruelty that he's guilty of. And then it ends with sole care and custody and control of said minor children. Ira Haney and Elmer Haney B and are the same, are hereby awarded to said plaintiff until further order of this court in premises and that defendant pay attorney's fees of $25. Okay, so then he, yes, for the kids, comes now the defendant Thomas Haney by his attorneys. I'm ruse the court that the decree entered in this said cause on the second day of March 1909, wherein among other things it was provided that the said plaintiff should have the sole care, custody and control of minor children, Ira and Elmer, demodified he have the control of said minor children. For the reason that said, Ida Haney is not a fit or proper person to have a care, custody, control of said minor children and in support of this motion, Thomas Haney attaches his affidavit and will rely upon oral evidence to be produced at the hearing of said motions. Okay, this is an affidavit. Thomas Haney being first duly sworn upon, oh, deposes and says that he is the defendant in the above entitled cause of the plaintiff and the defendant were married in Denver, Colorado more than 21 years ago that as a result of said marriage, they were born Thomas Haney, now the age of 20, Paul Haney, now the age of 16, Lawrence Haney, now the age of 14, Flan Haney, now 12, Dorothy, now 10, Ira, now 6, and Elmer, now 5. So, if they're above 10, they don't need to be somebody of the court. Well, or maybe that was the age that they sent them off to New York because wasn't it like fours? Maybe it was like 12 or 13. Yeah, we know that Paul was 13 when he around 13 when he went to the mountains and then Thomas actually lived in Denver and I think he worked with his dad and then he died pretty young. He died in the Spanish fool. Yeah, which is probably how the story got mixed up. Well, that's a whole nother story but he might have contracted it and that's what affected his heart. Yeah, that's on the senior, you know, that's something we'll never know exactly. Yeah, but so Thomas Jr. was married and had a baby and then he died. A decree of divorce was obtained by Ira on the 15th of February 1907, the plaintiff and defendant for the sake of Kerry and protecting their children agreed again to assume their marital relationship and were married in Pueblo on the 15th. They decided to resume marriage for their kids, which is fairly common, you know, I wonder if like something was going on with the kids, they decided to do that. Well, the baby happened. So maybe she was struggling. Well, they got divorced the first time in 1902 and then when did they get remarried? 1907. The sake of caring and protecting their children, they agreed to assume the marital relationship and were married in Pueblo on the 15th day of February 1907, but afterwards and on to with the second day of March 1909 that idea he made obtained a decree of divorce in the above entitled cause and the divorce was granted on the grounds of extreme and repeated acts of cruelty. This is covering what's not so clear. It says the he didn't know of here in person or at the time he was a sense to the granting of divorce on the second day of March 1909, the decree was entering with the plaintiff. Ira has to have the caring custody of Ira and Elmer that long prior to the entering of this decree, this afflite had provided a good home for their daughter, Florence Heaney, and he had established the side orange Heaney and Dorothy Heaney in the St. Clair's orphanage in the city and county of Denver. So that's where he was making it, like that was a good thing. That he got the established in the orphanage, but the defendant did not appear in person or offer any resistance to the granting of the divorce on the court and to decree which it was provided among other things. But the plaintiff Ira Heaney was to have caring custody of Ira and Elmer Heaney, that long prior to the entering of this decree, this afflite had provided a good home for their daughter Florence Heaney and had established the side orange Heaney and Dorothy Heaney in the St. Clair's orphanage in the city and her daughter. What do I forget records for later? I actually went down that route already and it's nothing behind it or something. It doesn't exist anymore and I tried to find it. I reached out to the Diocese of Denver, something like that would be kind of the more the like district of the Catholic Church and they said that those records were destroyed. That's crazy. Some names of the jurors. Reading this, our understanding is that Thomas Heaney and Dorothy Heaney and Dorothy Heaney and Dorothy Heaney and Dorothy Heaney and the Florence was sent off to New York that was his mine, providing him with a good home. Not his, really. Well and again, he's also probably looked at the same by people in that time. So Thomas is engaged in the business of general contracting and construction, constructing public works and that it requires almost all his time away from his family. That he had learned prior to the institution of this divorce and after his institution and after the granting of a decree that the plaintiff had been guilty of adultery and improper conduct with one James Miller and one Hopkins. Wow. The plaintiff in this case is now engaged in the business of a rooming house in the city of Colorado Springs. So we know she's doing it in this is 1909. And this client charges on the information that the plaintiff is not a fit or pepper person to have the care and custody of all said minor children. That after the granting of this degree and in pursuance of an agreement, understanding the client took the two minor children and placed them in St. Clair's orphanage in the city and county of Denver together with Dorothy and the blanche sisters upset, Elmer and I are all four are we're together, where they were receiving proper care and attention and we're being properly educated. That honor about the blank day of March 1910, Ida Haney without any notice whatsoever to this fine Thomas, which is said St. Clair's orphanage and against the wishes and desires of Thomas and of the sisters in charge took all of the four children with her to Colorado Springs. That the children had no other clothing with them except what they had upon them at the time that Ida Haney and lawfully took children from said home that Ida Haney has absolutely no means of providing for the support maintenance and education and to leave them in the custody of Ida Haney will not for the best interest of the said children and not be for the best interest. This Thomas is not a man of considerable means but by means of constant and hard work he's able to provide all of his said children with such advantages as we've enabled them to live properly and obtain proper education and he is willing and able to provide for the children in some proper home or institution where the children can be properly taken care of and where they will be properly educated. Do you think that maybe because it says he can't ever be around his family because of his work. Do you think he put them in an orphanage because of that? Probably. He but he but essentially has like day care probably all time day care. I mean I'm sure he thought he was doing the best that he could do. I mean he probably also was angry for like making all the stuff public and you know I mean what should have been shame on him although it seemed like he was trying to even the way the articles read seemed like it was more about shame on her. The guys that he named? Yeah. There's an article that just says Florence travels with Paul Heaney to Iowa in 1911 December. So okay. So this is the first divorce between Ida and Thomas. Plaintive the action against defendant kind of breaks it down. The first is that she does not seek alimony the second is that for more than a year immediately proceeding the filing of this complaint. She has been a bona fide resident and citizen of state of Colorado and is now resident of El Paso County. Third on the 13th day of February 1889 at Denver Colorado Plaintive and Defendant were married to each other and now husband and wife that all the all time since said marriage plaintive has performed her part and said marriage contract has conducted herself toward defendant as a true and faithful wife. Fourth they're now living. They're now living as result of said marriage. The following named minor children Thomas Heaney age 12. Paul age eight Florence Heaney age six Blanche Heaney age four and Dorothy Heaney age three. Fifth the defendant has been guilty of extreme repeated acts of cruelty towards plaintive during the whole period of their married life and particularly for the last two years that on the 23rd of May 1901 the plaintiffs home in El Paso County Colorado Defendant without any cause or a provoked for a proxy whatever. Struck in be plaintive with his fists knocking her down and calling her all sorts of vial and abusive names and if I'm not sure I would say that word but's E P I T H E T this during the months of April and May 19. I'm not totally sure it's kind of it looks like 19.02 again but I can't see it exactly. Defendant mean repeated threats to kill the plaintive and often shook his fists in her face and told her to take her clothes and leave the house. That at all times since said marriage in particularly for the last four or five years defendant has been possessed of extremely high and petulant temper and disposition and continually addressed plaintive in a way that was intended to greatly injure her feelings causing plaintive constant trouble and suffering that on or about the seventh day of June 1902 plaintive was compelled on account of set abuse and the threats against her life made by the defendant to take her small children and leave the home. Sixth the defendant is about 42 year is a 42 year old man and has a large property or large property interest he owns 30 or 320 acres of land in said county of state that values 2000 dollars described as follows others kind of breaks it down into what he has the defendant also owns personal property in said county that values $1,000 consisting of 28 head of cattle one team wagon harness three head of hogs and all the tools and farming implements used on and about his said farm. It seems like Oregon trail. The plaintive has no property or means of support for herself and said minor children and no money with which to prosecute the suit that all of above is described property is the result of the joint earnings of the plaintive and defendant since their said marriage that she built the house that was on that property and it was all considered his property. That defendant as is a man of careless and vicious habits and holy unfit to be entrusted with the care and custody of children. Seventh the defendant now threatens to depose dispose of above described property and take the money derived there from abandoned his family and leaves the country thus leaving plaintive and all of said minor children without a home and without any means of support that plaintive is informed and believes and so so alleges the fact to be the defendant will depose of said property at once. On on less restrained by this honorable court the plaintive has no speedy or adequate remedy at law in the premises that the matters involved herein are too urgent to admit that the delay incident delay of incident to giving notice of an application for a temporary injunction herein and that if said notice were given defendant would depose of his said property before said application could be heard. Where where four plaintive praise that she may be divorced from said defendant Tomasini so that she may be awarded the care and custody of the above named minor children that a temporary injunctional or restraining order at once issue out of this honorable court restraining the defendant herein from deposing of said real estate and personal property above described or any part therefore until the further order of the court for reasonable alimony for the support of the plaintive and said children pending this suit for $1,000 permanent alimony for $200 attorney's fees and for her costs herein expended. I wonder if that might have been part of what helped her get some of the property depending on how that settled. I did stand back and forth with the rest of these and basically they go back and forth filing that he says he didn't do it she did she says he did I didn't come across words she says he used the children that was the first time I read that it's not surprising right right you have a temporary you have a temporary right and he does admit to drinking but he doesn't do it in front of the family what he says right well he probably does it at the local bar and then comes home or maybe he does it in front of the children yeah anyway that's the kind of assembly of the rest of these pages wow so this is the estate of Thomas Heaney when did he die in 1913 this is what happened after he died or this is this is this is like yeah his will like what happened to the to his estate the understand respectfully represents that Thomas F. Heaney departed this light on Rook Island train in route Denver to Davenport, Iowa whilst a resident of Denver, Colorado November 11th 1913 Thomas F. Heaney died seized and possessed of real estate in Colorado as follows rear 40 foot of plot one block 36 Harman's ad edition I'm guessing Denver which petitioner estimates to be worth about about $600 that's crazy which I mean when they were talking about the past property that he had that was like $3,000 which was a lot back then so sounds like he would dwindle that away significantly the personal estate of descendant consists chiefly of cash horses harness and lumber wagon all the personal estate of descent so far has come to the knowledge or belief of your petitioner is by him estimated to be worth about $1,500 worth $3,000 go mine well could have partly gone to I don't I don't yeah yeah um so okay so this says Thomas was in Davenport at the time Indiana no Iowa then Florence and Blanche were also in Davenport in 1913 and then Paul was in Cremling Dorothy was in Colorado Springs Ira and Elmer were in Colorado Springs so then messed up and with Ida at that time because he was in Denver he died on the train but he was living in Denver oh another thing that was in that last side of papers was he owned horses that was used in his business his work that got him additional money so I showed more things and he was making 120 by dollars a month oh he had progressed this kind of the wagon and the horses is like a construction person's truck now right right that's that's a good point this one shows the value of $100 teams of 1,400 pound grading mayors at the Solita interesting one you'll 1,300 pound also at the Solita so did he have property in Utah holy cow one set double harness for the same with same above are in the hands of Patrick Fitzgerald who is under contract to pay $1.50 a week for their use and defeat and shoe them oh so maybe he's like ranting it out could be yeah one lumber wagon in Denver probably probably in the hands of John W. Musconi of 1725 Lairmer it's not official that it says it's probably somewhere in that Lairmer square I wonder um deceased died on train with cash on him which is in the hands of his brother John Heaney of Davenport Iowa amounting to $1,080 right so it was 300 which I guess they didn't have bank accounts really so if they were going to travel that far and be gone for like a decent amount of time they probably had to if somebody lived in the lumber wagon in Denver is probably in the hands of John Musconi of 1725 Lairmer so to see where that is inventory notice of adjustment day inheritance tax this is Ira description of property livestock harness and wagon claim against John Heaney this claim is disputed huh oh it's against John Heaney that's the money the cash that he had that he kept to the brother kept wow from the from his nephews well one of that's surprising isn't I guess not uh most of his brother kept the money yeah and then the property which now they're saying is $100 so they're saying Thomas Heaney gets so they basically all got $240 wow out of all that which I guess $240 isn't I wonder what that would be in that time household furniture working animals $200 necessary food for animals their farm infamines tools and implements of any person $200 as you can probably tell we had to wrap up a little sooner than planned the Colorado State archives was closing for the day and our time ran out before our questions did but even in the short time we spent there what we uncovered was heavy the records told stories of loss betrayal and heartbreak parts of it is life that we'd only ever sensed in whispers seeing them spelled out and black and white was it was gutting and yet it also made her strength that much more real every tragedy we found on those pages was a seed of her resilience the fire that forged the woman who rebuilt her life from the ground up who fought for her family survival and who planted the roots that still hold us together generations later we may have run out of time today but I just story is far from over we'll be back to keep piecing together the truth and honoring the woman who turned her pain into power and thank you for joining us on this journey for listening feeling and remembering with us if you take anything from Ida's story let it be this even in the darkest chapters you can grow legacies of strength and hope so if you're in the dark chapter hold on keep pushing it will get better and we'll see you next week on Roots to Rafters