St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-02-03
The Majority Of the Divorce
Cases Set for Trial Con-
tinued One Week.
One or Two Of Them Which
Proved Interesting to
Spectators.
The Regulation Grind Of Small
Cases, Some Of Which
Are New.

trict court yesterday w. c. Thayer
was the first witness. He had known
Mr.. and Mrs. Manning in Eau Claire,
Wis, he said, and then he went on to
state that Mrs. Manning had left her
husband and had become the mistress
of another man. Mr.. Manning, the
plaintiff, was not sworn. He was
twenty-siX, he said, while Mrs. Manning
was but twenty-three. They were mar
ried in December, 1884, and lived to-
gether but three months. Then she
began going out nights and sometimes
remaining away for two or three days
at a time. One evening when he came
home from work he found her gone, to-
gether with nearly all the household
goods. He found out then that she had
gone to live in rooms over a saloon on
the North side.
81 met her once on the street, con-
tinued the witness, land asked her to
come back and live with me, but she
said she would not do it: and when I
removed to Saltwater | again asked her
to come to me, but she refused"
Mr.. Manning's sister, Mrs. Friend,
was called to the stand, and cOrrobOr-
dUGu MI. SUOl VI IllC uCSCl-
ton. A divorce was granted.
A MIXED UP AFFAIR.
The Staples divorce, in which d.
vorce was refused week ago, was
taken up again yesterday and d. G.
Benedicts, brother of Mrs. Staples,
placed on the stand. He swore that the
missing husband was in the habit of
getting drunk whenever he could get
enough money to buy whisky. The
witness stated that he had frequently
seen Staples abuse his wife over small
matters. On one occasion he had seen
Staples slap his wife and throw her
down because she had received a letter
which she would not let him read. Mrs.
Benedict was next sworn. She had
seen MI. Staples under the influence of
liquor several times. and on one or two
occasions had seen him ill-treat Mrs.
Mrs. Hattie Flett, a handsome young
woman who said she was Mrs. Staples
sister, was the third and last witness.
Staples got drunk, she said. whenever
he could get money. She had never seen
him abuse her, but had heard him
threaten to strike her because he had
stayed out all night. The witness could
not remember dates at all. and became
greatly confused several times. The
case was taken under advisement by
Judge Hicks, who said he did not ex-
actly like the way things had been run.
MRS. PENFIELD'S MONEY.
The suit of Mrs. Sarah A. Penfield
against James and Mary Smith, to re-
cover a 81, 900 gold certificate which
James Smith was charged with having
stolen from her place of business at
Nicollet avenue, and of which charge
he was acquitted few days ago, came
up before Judge Rea late in the after
noon. Mrs. Penfield went on the stand,
and told of getting the money at the
First National bank and placing it in
the safe. James Smith was working in
the room at the time, and soon after he
had gone out she missed the money.
The next day Smith was exhibiting
$1,000 certificate around the streets.
At the instance of Mrs. Penfield he was
the bill. A bartender in Washington
avenue saloon swore that soon after the
money was taken Smith had come into
the saloon and exhibited a $1,000 gold
certificate. which he SAID rich uncle in
New York had sent him. Mrs. Penfeld
was given Judgment for 81 900.
CONTINUED CASES.
The following cases came up at the
special term of the district court yeSter-
day and were continued for one OF two
weeks: Flour City National Bank VS..
Walter S. Perkins ct AL, the matter of
the assignment of the Minnesota Brad
ner-Smith Paper company, Conway
Hodsdon VS.. EbeneZer Hodseon, c. FL.
Hoyt VS.. j. S. ingalls, ct al. r. p. Rus
sell VS.. George Harrison, Ellen NJ. Chase
ct al. VS.. Semon Rankin ct al, S. E.
Chase VS.. W. B. Clark, Mary Bragg VS..
James A. Shedd, Mary E. Semon VS.. P.
P. Swenson. G., A. Ecert VS.. John +.
Long, Mrs. Mabie Hunt VS.. Charles G:
Hunt. the matter of the assignment
of the Church & Graves Manu-
featuring company. w. F. Thomp-
son VS.. G. II. Ermantrout, Eliza
G, Finch VS.. Silas M. Finch,
James Barry VS.. w. II. McDougall;
Margaret Mursette VS.. w. H. Allomson;
Retta s. Beach VS.. Samuel D. Gaylord;
the matter of the application for the
appointment of receiver for the firm
of Letcher & Valentine; the matter of
the laying out of First avenue south;
Charles de Laittre VS.. James GOodnow;
Lillian M. GrOulX VS.. Peter B. GrOulX;
Thomas II. Evarts VS.. John Johnson;
the matter of the application of Mr.. and
Mrs. L. ID. Knapp to adopt an infant
child; Sarah a. Pentield VS.. James
Smith ct al. George W. Bigeley VS.. A.
NJ. Alden: e. W. Backus VS., E. l..
Young ct al
A MOTION TO DISMISS.
The divorce suit of Olive L. Weldon
against John A. Weldon came up in the
district court yesterday morning on
motion to dismiss by the attorney for
the defendant. He argued that in
swearing to the complaint Mrs. Weldon
hoc ri,
Weldon. but had gone by the false
name OF Olive Weldon. The court held
that this was not sufficient to dismiss
the case, and accordingly denied the
motion.
BRIEF NOTES.
Judge Young made an order yeSter-
day in the suit of Henry Seibert,
trustee, against the st. Louis road to
compel the foreclosure of all mortgages
held against the road, calling upon Sci
bert to make his complaint more specific
in regard to what property he claims to
have first lien.
The suit of John FitZgibbons against
the Chicago. Milwaukee & st. Paul
Railway company to recover 500 dam
ages by reason of the cOmpany's throw
ing snow OH roof of one of his buildings
was decided yesterday, when the jury
returned verdict for the defendant.
The case has been On trial for nearly
three days.
The case of Charles Sodini, an Italian
citizen, against Ada Sodini, in which
Charles Sodini wanted divorce on the
ground of adultery and desertion, came
up before Judge Rea. and, after hear
ing the case, a divorce was granted.
The Minneapolis, Lyndale & Mime
tonka Railway company has begun suit
against Donald Kennedy, Jr., G. c. Mil
Ter and Howard A. Trumbull ct alto re-
cover $500 OH two promiss0ry notes.
The suit of John Smith against the
$500 road to recover $4,000 damages
for injuries received remained on trial