St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-20
ADULTERY AND FRAUD.
0lmstead Gets Hoisted by His Own
Petard.
DIVORCED AND MARRIED
There Must Be No M0nkeying With
the Laws of This
State.

An important point on the question
of divorce was that settled by the su-
preme court yesterday in the case of
Julia K. Olmstead, respondent, against
George E. Olmstead, appellant. The
parties formerly lived in Aberdeen,
Oak. Early in 1888 the defendant en-
gagged in the saloon business in Mime
apolis against the wishes of his wife,
the plaintiff, who refused to come and
reside with him unless he abandoned it,
which he declined to do, and she has
continued to reside at Aberdeen with
her father, though she made him
short visit the latter part of April. The
evidence tended to show that the huS-
band instituted divorce proceedings;
that attorneys were employed by him
and complaint prepared under his di-
rection, and without her knowledge or
authority, alleging his own adultery,
which he denied in his verified answer,
which was served Immediately upon
the filing of the complaint, and within
decree was obtained. She was not
present at the trial, knew nothing
of it, nor had she any knowl-
edge or intimation of any of
the proceedings, save , that he
came to Aberdeen where she
was on May 7, sent for her for private
interview at place which turned out
to be the office of an attorney employed
and paid by him, in the course of which
he notified her that he did not intend to
live with her any more, and of his de-
sire for divorce on the ground of his
adultery, of which she had never heard
and had no knowledge, except from his
statements. He insisted upon her sign
ing paper in divorce proceedings,
which, under mental dureSs, she was
finally prevailed to do. She had no fur
Their knowledge of the proceedings until
she heard of the decree on June 25,when
she took proceedings to set aside the
same. Within ten days after the entry
of the judgment the defendant married
another woman. The district court,
however, vacated the decree for fraud
ulent practices in obtaining it, and this
is upheld by the highest court.
EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.
Eleanore Schaffer, appellant, brought
respondent, to recover damages against
the city for diverting the course of
stream of water which ran through
plaintiffs lot. The only question liti-
gated and considered in the case was
that of damages. Upon this there was
a wide diversity in the testimony, and
the lower court was of the opinion that
the verdict for the amount rendered
was not justified by the evidence, and
granted new trial. In this the SUI
preme court find no abuse of discretion,
and, in conformity with the settled rule
of this court applicable in such cases.
the order is affirmed.
DECISIONS.
In affirming the order of the lower
court in the case of l.. Kimball & Co.,
appellant, VS.. d. E. Jones, respondent,
the court rule light two-seated vehicle
owned and used by the debtor is ex-
empt under the statute.
First National Bank of Luverne. re-
spondent, against Jaeger & Simpson,
appellants. Order affirmed.
Frank R. Petit, ct al, respondents,
against the State Insurance company,
Of Des Moines, To-, appellant. Order
affirmed.
Frederick Kopp. respondent. against
Northern Pacific railroad company, ap-
pellant. Order affirmed.
Albert Darling, respondent, against
Ere derrick R. Peck, appellant. judy
ment reversed.
Joseph Sordeson, appellant, against
Henry &. Menage, respondent. Order
affirmed.
F. P. Strong, as assignee, ETC., appel
liant, against D. P. Brown. sheriff, re-
spondent. Order reversed.