We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
bJ) from wu>M'Irm>/fm
Talmadge's millionaire tobacconist did? We really can't quite remember. Perhaps he smoked a clay pipe and the cheapest brand of his own commodity. Or insisted upon leaving his hair brush near her tooth brush. Or was a bit objectionably bossy.
A s for Valentino — Jean Acker brought a score of charges, all the way "from frivolous disinterest and incompatibility to desertion and non-support, but you can see for yourself she would never insist on being known as Mrs. Rodolph Valentino after the debacle if he had affronted her with any more alarming sins— now would she? Divorced wives have their pride.
When Carmel Myers shed Isadore Kornblum, it was only because he had deserted her, and failed in that sympatica charm w h i c h some husbands never can attain.
And when, after his second divorce, James Youngcited certain unpleasantindictments against Clara Whipple Young, by which
Jean Acker brought a score of charges against Valentino, but you can see that she would never insist on being known as Mrs. Rodolph Valentino if he had affronted her with any really alarming sins. Divorced wives have their pride.
he felt justified ' in requiring the return of certain properties — it was made very plain that both parties had been at peculiar pains . to avoid any unkind charges in the original divorce. And no one could have been more gratified than Mr. Young — we feel certain — than to have the judge decide that Clara could still be assumed "virtuous." It
What was it Connie Talmadge's millionaire tobacconist did? We can't quite remember. Perhaps he smoked a clay pipe, or insisted on leaving his hair brush near her tooth brush.
was worth the price of the properties to have his ex-wife's reputation cleared. Of course.
!§>o firmly established is this ethical understanding that we doubt if any star would consider for a moment bringing a divorce suit if she had no other charge than the ultimate improper one. Certainly not if hubby could be persuaded to be a perfect gentleman and desert her instead — preferably at the lure of golf,
Mildred Harris found it urgently desirable to part from Charlie Chaplin, but not because of any wicked sirens. Oh, dear,, no; her charges were merely coldness and desertion.
or, at a pinch, for the excessive use of the more expensive bootleg whisky, . although this latter charge is coming more and more to smack of ostentation.
As for film husbands, they can be counted upon to be even more gallant. When they wish to cease the marital partnership, when, in fact, the lady has outlived their liking, rather than bring any complaint against her, they will themselves commit a few trifling crimes and permit the lady to shed them gracefully on her own account.
All of which is offered as evidence that our film colony is infinitely more genteel, more sensitive to the delicacies of life than, say, our bankers or commercial magnates. Where, for instance, could one duplicate the Stillman case in screenland? Or the Stokes case? Or even the Joyce case? One shudders to think of the alarming results if our film stars ever descended so low.
I
_f we feel that we positively must shed a spouse in filmland and rush to our lawyers in poignant sorrow and regret, it is understood that said (Continued on page 95.)
57