The following records, now located in the 'genealogy area' in the court house basement, were copied by an employee of the Court Clerk's Office at Perry, Noble County, Oklahoma and transcribed by Linda Sparks Starr APR 2001. But first a bit of background about the major players. Oliver "Ollie" was the son of Andrew J. Potter and Sarah (Womach). Her father and some of his siblings changed the spelling of the surname from Womack (with a "k" ending) to Womach. Although we haven't identified David's parents, it is safe to say Ollie and D(avid) C. Womach were likely first cousins. From a newspaper clipping we learned David Womach and his wife, Edith (Buzard), were married in the residence of A. E. Buzard, whose wife is a sister of Oliver Potter. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NOBLE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA. D. C. Womach, Plaintiff vs. PETITION Ollie Potter, Defendant (no date) Plaintiff for cause of action against the defendant avers: - That on the 20th day of December, A.D., 1903, this plaintiff, D. C. Womach and one Edith Buzard intermarried and became husband and wife, and that said plaintiff and Edith Buzard Womach have ever since been and now are husband and wife. That there were born to said plaintiff and his said wife, four children: - Katherine, aged seven years; Nina Helen aged five years, Neva age three years, and Byron age two years, all of whom are now alive. That heretofore and on the 21st day of March, A.D. 1914, and at divers times and on occasions the identity of which are not known to this plaintiff, in the County of Noble and State of Oklahoma, the defendant wrongfully, wilfully and knowingly contriving and intending to injure this plaintiff and deprive plaintiff of the comfort, society, aid and assistance of his wife, the said defendant did wilfully, (sic) wrongfully, wickedly and lasciviously and without the knowledge or consent of this plaintiff, debauch and carnally know said Edith Womach, the true and lawful wife of this plaintiff. That by reason of the conduct of said defendant, the love and affection of the said Edith Womach for this plaintiff was alienated and destroyed, and this plaintiff deprived of the comfort, society aid and assistance and the co-habiting, residing and consorting of her the said Edith Womach, which plaintiff would otherwise have had with the said Edith Womach, and further deprived of the comfort, society, aid and assistance of the said Edith Womach in the rearing of his said children, and that this plaintiff has therefrom and thereby suffered great distress and anguish of body and mind. That said acts and conduct on the part of said defendant, Ollie Potter, has destroyed the home of this plaintiff and his said family, and rendered his future life with said Edith Womach impossible, and has compelled plaintiff to live separate and apart from said wife thereby. That by reason of the premises, the plaintiff has been and still is wrongfully deprived by the defendant of the comfort, society, aid and services of his said wife, and has suffered great distress of body and mind and estate in the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant, Ollie Potter, for the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.) Dollars, and costs of suit, and for such other and proper relief as to the court may seem just and equitable in the premises. P. W. Cress Attorney for Plaintiff. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NOBLE COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA D. C. Womach, - - - - - Plaintiff, ) vs. ) No. 1009 Ollie Potter, - - - - - - Defendant ) MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. Comes now the defendant, Ollie Potter, in the above entitled action and moves the court to set aside the verdict of the jury returned herein on the 9th day of January, 1915, the judgment of the court upon said verdict and to grant a new trial in the above entitled cause for the following causes, affecting materially the substantial rights of said defendant, towit: - 1st. - Irregularity in the proceedings of the jury who tried said cause by which said defendant was prevented from having a fair trial. 2nd. Misconduct of the jury during the trial and after the jury retired to their jury room to consider their verdict. 3rd. Misconduct of the plaintiff during the trial and after said cause was submitted to the jury. 4th. Accident and surprise which materially affected the substantial rights of the defendant, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. 5th. For the reason that the jury returned a verdict for excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. 6th. That the court erred in giving instruction numbered one, to the jury, over the objections and exceptions of the defendant. [The next several entries refer to other, non-specific numbered instructions, that the defendant objected and excepted to at the time -- thus are omitted from this transcription.] 18th. That the court erred in permitting the plaintiff in this case to testify, over the objection of the defendant, to the act of sexual intercourse alleged to have been committed by the defendant, to which ruling the defendant at the time excepted. 19th. That the court erred in refusing to strike from the record and withdraw from the jury the testimony of the plaintiff given in said cause wherein said plaintiff testified as to the act of sexual intercourse, upon the motion of the defendant to strike such testimony from the record and withdraw the same from the jury, to which ruling of the court the defendant at the time excepted. 20th. That said verdict is contrary to law. 21st. That said verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. 22nd. That said judgment is contrary to law. 23rd. That said judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence. 24th. For other errors of law occurring at the trial and duly excepted to by the defendant at the time. 25th. On account of newly discovered evidence material for the defendant, which said defendant could with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial. 26th. For the reason that after all the evidence had been introduced and the instructions of the court had been read to the jury, the court permitted the jury to separate during the night of January 8th, and return into court the morning of January 9th, after a night of separation, such separation occurring after the instructions had been given to the jury and before the argument of counsel in said cause. 27th. That the court erred in rejecting certain competent and material testimony and evidence offered on the part of the defendant, to which refusal the defendant at the time excepted. 28th. That the court erred in admitting certain incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial testimony and evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, over the objection of the defendant, to which the defendant at the time excepted. 29th. That the court erred in overruling the demurrer of the defendant to the evidence of the plaintiff which demurrer was submitted at the close of the plaintiff's evidence in chief, to which ruling the defendant at the time excepted. Parker & Simons Attorneys for Defendant AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL State of Oklahoma ) Garfield County ) SS Ollie Potter of lawful age being first duly sworn, says: That he is the defendant in the above entitled action and that he was present during the trial of the above entitled cause during the 7th, 8th and 9th of January, 1915: Affiant further says that the plaintiff has a little boy about three years old and defendant has a little son about the same age, both of which little boys were present in the court room during the trial of said cause and at intervals during the trial were playing around in the court room in full view of the jury who tried said cause: That each of said little children were dressed very similar and were about the same weight: That during the argument of said cause to the jury the plaintiff's little son was playing on the floor directly in front of the jury and was during part of that time sitting in the chair occupied by witnesses during the trial: Affiant further says that during said trial affiant's family consisting of his wife and four children were present at all times in the court room in full view of the jury, excepting his two older boys who were witnesses, and that during said trial the plaintiff's wife and their four children were present in the court room in full view of the jury: Affiant further says that he is reliably informed and on such information states that immediately after the jury had returned their verdict in the above cause several of the jurymen went across the street from the Court House to the rooming house where the plaintiff's wife was staying and went to her room and after being admitted to her room, one of said jurors, whose name affiant has not yet been able to discover, but who can be located, told Mrs. Womach, the plaintiff's wife, that he would like to ask her a question with her permission and that she stated that he could do so, and that this juror then asked Mrs. Womach whether or not her little three year old boy was the son of the plaintiff, D. C. Womach, or of the defendant, Ollie Potter: Affiant further says that repeatedly during the trial of said cause he noticed different members of the jury looking at and scrutinizing the plaintiff's wife, who was not a witness in said cause, and that during said trial he noticed said jurors frequently looking at the children of plaintiff and the children of the defendant, all of whom were in the court room, none of whom were witnesses in said cause, excepting the two older boys of said affiant. Oliver Potter Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of January, 1915. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NOBLE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA. D. C. Womach, Plaintiff vs. Ollie Potter, Defendant State of Oklahoma County of Noble Edith Womach being first duly sworn on oath states: - That she has read the affidavit of Ollie Potter filed in the above cause on the 11th day of January, 1915 in support of his motion for a new trial in which he states that after the trial a juror asked her whether or not her little three year old boy was the son of D. C. Womach, plaintiff, or son of Ollie Potter. Affiant states that no such question was asked her by said juror or any juror or any person on said date or at any time since said date, and, that said affidavit that said juror asked her such a question or that any other person asked her such a question on said date after said trial or at any other time, is false and untrue, without foundation in fact. Affiant further states that during the argument of said cause her child was not seated in the witness chair at any time. Further affiant sayeth not. Mrs. Edith Womach Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of January A.D. 1915. [Bessie Potter was granted a divorce from Ollie "six months from May 2, 1921". The researcher said the divorce filed just before or just after Bessie's was Edith and D. C. Womach's divorce. No effort has been made to follow up on D. C., Edith or Bessie. To our knowledge, Ollie did not remarry.]