The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-12-14

Mr.. Rawlins said that if the case was set
for Monday it would be inconvenient, as the
Utah commission would also have hear
ing with reference to the registration on
that day and also that he had other bust
ness on that date.
Judge Zane then fixed next Monday
morning at 10 o'clock as the time of hear
ing.
IS MARRIAGE A FAILURE?
The case of Jennie Eldridge VS.. George
A Eldridge came up for hearing. The
plaintiff had made application for divorce
on the ground OF falling to supply the
necessities of life, and when placed on the
witness stand she testified in substance as
follows: / was married to the defendant
in February, 1885, at Meadowville, and at
the time of our marriage he had 25 cents in
cash and was owing bill of $50. He had
no means of support except what he
earned. He did nothing during the winter
but feed pig and the chickens, and about
ten head of cattle. He could get plenty of
work, but would not take it. l had a
brother stopping with US who was large
enough to do the chores. The defendant
could have hauled poles; could have hired
out on ranch, or hunted. We had nothing
to eat but bacon. He could have shot
ducks or fshed, but he would do neither
He did not work during the greater portion
of the day.
Mrs. Raleigh testifed-My daughter was
married to the defendant at Meadowyille
In waited on her when she was sick. When
l went there found the house furnished
only with the furniture l loaned them
They had some bread in the house and one
pig. l took food with me- When they
were first married 1 provided all the pro-
visions and had to furnish her clothing.
gave him money to buy eight COWS and he
was to lee, tn IN On shares. He Dor
rowed money of me to pay for the place
they lived in and he has not paid me yet.
He could have hunted, flocks of geese came
flying to the door, but he never could be
induced to shoot at them. Then he could
have gone to the stream and hit fish
but did not. He always refused to go
hunting as he said he couldn't get anything
and never went fishing that I know of. l
asked him to go fishing great mary times,
but ne always said they would not bite. /
asked him if he had tried it and he said he
had tried it few years before He had
nothing but what provided. l sent them
sausage and dried fruit number of times.
My daughter kept house for the defendant
and sometimes went out and done sewing,
and she threatened TO go out and do wash
ing.
The plaintiff rested and the defense
moved for nonsuit on the ground of in
sufficient evidence. In ruling on the mat
ter Judge Zane said: 1.-THE evidence shows
that the man was rather indolent, AMI that
ne supplied but very little clothing The
plaintiff and defendant, it appears lived
together two years, and during that time
the defendant bought beef twice, and the
food consisted of bacon, beef, -four and
few potatoes 1t seems to me that man
should supply more than this in two years.
a man might be excused from fishing if the
fish do not bite, at least that has been my
experience. l will hear the rest of the
evidence"
The defendant then took the stand and
testified was married to the plaintiff in
February, 1885. We lived together about
two and half years at Mea1owville. I
had land and team and wagon but no
house. l was farmer and had been ever
since l was able to walk. never refused
- get anything my wife wanted excepting
a fish. She had the privilege of going to
the store. The first winter l had "a head
of cattle on shares. / spent my money in
Evanston for provisions. My wife went
to Salt Lake once and came back with a
bolt of factory and a new dress and said,
''see what ma gave me; don't V GU think it
pays me TO go to Salt Lake!n l said
1 thought it did l did not want to get
married until fall, but her mother asked
me why and l told her was not prepared,
and she said she had some furniture which
she would loan me- l never refused her
provisions to live on just as!much as 1 had
and think she could live on the same food
as did l am no hunter and if i ever killed
anything it was an accident. My wife went
10 Salt Lake when she left me and re-
ceived letter like this:
Dear George have made up my mind
not to come back, as 1 don't love you. Sell
the furniture for cash and send me the
money or trade it for stock and help for
the baby.
/ bought her all the clothes she wanted
but didn't keep track of it.
Joshua Eldridge, brother of the defen-
dant, testified that the defendant was a
good, Woodworking man THE case was then
concluded and the court refused the decree
for divorce as the evidence was not strong
enough.
OTHER CASES.
Sarah Rode vs. Thomas Snow ct al: al
lowed until the 18th inst. to file notice for
new trial.
S. E. Vance ct al. VS.. J. H. Whalon; ten
days additional time to file statement on |
motion for new trial.
William Perego VS.. William H. Dodge ct |
al jurors came into court and announced |
that they could not agree, whereupon they |
were discharged.
Henry Cumberland VS.. J. r. Morris; ap- |
plication for mandamus; motion for post
ponement set for Monday, the 10Th
Jesse Bell VS.. G. d. ST. George; motion
to file amended complaint by Stephens,
attorney for plaintiff, allowed, and ten days
given to answer.
j. A. Goodhue VS.. John M Cannon;
amended answer filed by consent and case
presented and submitted.
c. r. Miller IS. Harvey Hardy ct al; by
consent continued and set for Thursday,
the 18th.
]. D. Schaffer VS.. Margaret Reich; mo
ton for continuance: case continued at de