The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1864-01-29

MINNEAPoLIs AND CEDAR VALLEY ROAD.
The mild weather gives opportunity, that is
being used, to push forward the work OF grad
ing on this road. We noticed a party the other
day busily laboring in the deep cut below Fort
Smelling, and learn that the heavy work under
taken by the contractors is lessened every day.
SAP RUNNING IN JANUARY-An elderly
Frenchman Of this city, during the present
January thaw, has tapped a few maple trees on
his land near Rice lakes, fifteen miles from this
city, and obtained therefrom sap sufficient to
make about twenty pounds of sugar.
DIVORCE CAsE.-The case of Tanner VS..
Tanner which has had frequent mention dur
ing its progress in court, has resulted in the
following decision
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
COUNTY OF RAMSEY,
District Court Sd Judicial District.
Mary C. Tanner, plaintiff, against John Tan
ner, defendant.
Action for divorces. VI. Flint and Grant IL
Freeman. attorneys for plaintiff; Cooper d
CrOwell for defendant
This cause came on for trial at the October
general term. 1868. before the Hon. E. G.
Palmer, District Judge.
In the decision of the above cause on file. the
following are the material facts found by the
Court, to wit:
That the plaintiff is thirty-fve years of age
and the defendant is sixty-twO years of age;
that the maiden name of the plaintiff was Mary
G. Blakely; that she was first married to one
Marston; that there is now living, the issue of
said marriage, one son named Alfred Marston,
who is eighteen years of age; that the said hus-
band of said plaintiff having deserted her, she
sought and obtained a divorce tor that cause.
And in the fall of 1856 the said plaintiff married
at Madison, Wisconsin, one H. w. Knight
that said plaintiff and said Knight lived together
as husband and wife until the spring of 1857,
when said Knight left the State of Wisconsin
and went South. where he was residing in the
years 1860 and 1861.
That said plaintiff came to St. Paul, in the
spring of 1857 and has ever since resided in
this State.
That in April, 1857 the ceremony of mar
rage was performed between plaintiff and de-
PENDANT by the Rev. John d. Pope, at st. Paul.
and therefore the said parties lived together as
husband and wife, upon the farm of defendant
in Washington county until April, 1862.
That for some months after the marriage, the
parties lived together in peace and comfort and
little occurred to disturb their domestic harmO-
nv until after said plaintiff had endeavOred to
induce the defendant to make over his property
for her benefit. That from and after this time,
occasional disputes and dissenSiOns occurred
growing out of and connected with the subject
of the transfer of property as above stated
That the parties continued to live together as
husband and wife until April 1, 1862, at which
time the plaintiff left the house OF the defend
ant and has not since returned.
al further find that at the date of the marriage
ceremony between the plaintiff and defendant
to wit: April 9th, 1859, the said plaintiff had a
former husband then living, to wit The said
H. w. Knight, and that the marriage of plain
tiff and said Knight as aforesaid, was valid
subssting marriage at the date last aforesaid
of all which the defendant herein was ignorant
As conclusions of law find that said plain
tiff is not entitled to the relief demanded in the
complaint herein, nor any relief, as plaintiff III
this action.
That said alleged marriage between salo
plaintiff and defendant was. and is wholly VOID,
and taht the defendant is entitled 10 the relief
demanded in his said answer.
Indictment and decree ACCORDINGLY.