The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-11-10
ON THE OTHER SIDE.
az. J. Forhan Sues G. P. Mason
y For $4,000.
THE VERSION OF THE PLAINTIFF.
Business Before Judge Zane Yesterday-The
Rurrows-ShurtliF Case Dismissed-A
Stay of Execution.

M. J. Forhan has commenced suit in the
SdiSIrIct court against &. z. Mason for
$4,000 damages. Below is the complaint,
which is self-explanatOry:
The above named plaintiff complains of
defendant and alleges:
That heretofore, to wit, on April 1, 1889,
in the city of Salt Lake and said territory,
he was duly married to Mary a. Forhan,
and thereafter and until November 4, 1882
lived with her as his wife.
That during the period named no just or
sufficient cause for separation ever arose or
existed between said plaintiff and his wife;
that on the date last named the said Mary
A. Forhan, under the influence of said c.
P. Mason, defendant herein, heretofore,
and tn n operating, a bandoned the home of
said plaintiff and betook herself to the
home of the said defendant.
That prior to her departure for the home
of the defendant, a United States deputy
mapshal visited her in her own home and
a1eked her if it was her desire that plaintiff
should be placed under arrest for an al
legged assault committed upon her without
provocat,On or justification; that she then
and there refused TO be a party to said ar
rest and up to and until the time she left
her own home for that of the defendant,
had refused 10 be party to any arrest of
plaintiff upon any charge.
That prior to her departure from her
own home warrant for the arrest
of said plaintiff on charge of
assaulting his said wife had been sworn out
before United States commissioner named
Harmel Pratt, at the instance and instiga-
ton OF some person or persons to plaintiff
unknown and without the knowledge or
consent of plaintiffs wife.
That the wife of the plaintiff refused to
take any part in the proceedings Hereunder
until she visited the house of said defend
amt, under whose influence, and at whose
instance and instigalion, as plaintiff verify
believes and charges the fact to be, the said
warrant was resurrected and while the
wife of the plaintiff was still at the home
and under the influence of the said Mason,
the plaintiff was arrested under said pro-
cess on the morning of Tuesday, Nov. 9Th,
AID. 1889, while in his own bed, between
the hours of seven and eight o'clock.
That under the same influence, that of
defendant, and at his instance, the wife of
said plaintiff had filed IN said court on the
date last M med, by w. H. Dickson, her at
torney, plant in divorce, asking for
the dissolution of the bonds of matrImony
tetueen herself and plaintiff
paaJ u JUn the examination of plaintiff
Upon the charge specified in said warrant,
the said Z. Z. Mason, accompanied by sew
oral of his friends and acquaintance, Wis
Med the office of the United States commits
sioRer, and was present during the hear
ing, for the purpose of influencing the de-
cisiOn of the said commissioner.
That plaintiff really believes from the
amount of the bond fixed upon the &C pdrte
hearing, that said commissioner was so in
tluenced by the presence of said Mason and
his friends, without intending to do ought
but justice to the plaintiff.
That plaintiff, believing that the com
missioner was influenced as aforesaid sued
out through b ) attorney a writ of habeas
corpus for the purpose Of determining if
his constitutional rights had been violated,
AMI that upon the hearing of said writ the
defendant herein was again present with
the same intent and purpose as during the
examination, to the voluntary neglect of
his own business and affairs, and notwith-
standing that in his absence the wife of
said plaintiff was amply protected in her
rights by the official duties devolving upon
the public United States officials engaged
in administering the law of said courts, and
might further have enlisted the services of
her able attorney had she so desired.
The apparent indecency of defendants
interference in plaintiffs affairs and his
marked interest therein led to criticism
and comment, which reached the ears of
plaintiff.
That up to the time of filing this suit, and
since the arrest OF plaintiff, as aforesaid,
there has been no hearing other than the
examination above mentioned upon said
warrant, and that the bare statement of
plaintiffs wife that she had been abused or
maltreated by plaintiff was wholly and en-
tirely influenced by said Mason, and con-
trary to her statements and actions up to
afARntil she visited his home and that
She was in nowise justified in leaving the
plaintiff.
That through the influence.of said de-
PENDANT plaintiff has lost the companion
ship and affection of his said wife and
that, through the same influence, she now
remains at the house of defendant, absent
from her own and that of her husband, al
though she. neither to plaintiff nor to any
one else of his knowledge, ever gave any
reason or expressed desire for leaving it
to the damage to the plaintiff in The sum
of $4,000
Wherefore, plaintiff prays damage in the
sum mentioned, $4,000, and costs of this
suit.
Mr.. Forhau's name appears as counsel
for the plaintiff Being asked if he in
tended 10 conduct the case alone, he re
fSlied: No; other counsel will be present
WheH the case comes to trial"