DIVORCE BATTLE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20625, 5 August 1941, Page 2

DIVORCE BATTLE

JOE LOUIS’ WIFE’S SUIT j Behind the court order granting Mrs. Marva Trotter, wife of Joe Louis, the champion boxer, temporary alimony of £4O a week, announced in a cable message from Chicago on Saturday, lies an interesting story. ' Marva Trotter Louis sued the world heavyweight boxing champion for divorce ill the Superior Court, in Chicago on June 2, charging cruelty. Mrs. Louis, who filed the action under her husband's leal name, Barrow, charged that the negro boxing champion struck her first on January 2. 1941, and again on April 19 of this year. The bill said she separated from him on the latter date. i , They were married in New York City on September 24, 1935. There are no children. Mrs. Louis, a Chicagoan, married Louis the night be knocked out Max Baer in the fourth round at Yankee Stadium in New York, That bout grossed approximately 1.000,000 dollars, with Louis’ share of 217,337, being one of the highlights of a career which has enabled him to earn almost 2,000.000 dollars since turning professional Beven years ago. The heavyweight champion, playing golf in Detroit when informed of his wife’s action, appeared stunned. "I don’t believe it,” he said. "I absolutely know nothing about it." He denied he had struck his wife and said he would not contest the divorce. “If she doesn't want to live with me,” he said, "what can I do about it?” He said he and his wife had had some differences, and added, "I thought they were all settled." He said the differences arose over his wife’s insistance that she accompany him to training camps and on exhibition tours. Louis said he had been giving his wife a weekly allowance. According to the bill, Louis, on January 2, 1941, in Chicago, “struck her a violent blow on the mouth with his hand,” and on last April 19 "hit her in the face with his hand and stepped on her ankle.” The plaintiff asked for alimony and that she be permitted to resume her maiden name. Mrs. Louis, who asked for adequate support while the suit is in litigation, asserted her only income is derived from an apartment building in which she now is living. The income from the building, she said, is not sufficient “to maintain self in the comfort to which the defendant has accustomed her, and in accordance with her station in life."