The Livingston enterprise. [volume] (Livingston, Mont.) 1883-1914, 1891-06-27

untrue to him before he secured a di-
yorce from her at Billings in 1889 before
Judge Thomas c. Bach, who is now ons
OF the counsel for Edgerton. This Al.
vorce, Mrs. Edgerton says, was obtained
without her knowledge. She denies that
she was ever criminally intimate With
anyone. A letter is attached to Edoer-
tons affidavit purporting to be a comics.
sion of guilt by Mrs. Edgerton. This is
characterized forgery
With reference to the Billings divorce
she states that Edgerton afterwards
came to her in New York city and told
her he had obtained divorce. She re-
piled that she would not believe it until
she saw the decree of the court. While
in New York Mrs. Edgerton SAYS he
came to her continually as before, called
her his wife and introduced her as such
to his friends. When brought to task
Tor the seeming contradiction of telling
her he had divorce and still claiming
| his rights as a husband, she SAYS he re-
Piled: "Oh, that does not amount to
anything Mrs Edgerton also states
that some time in 1886 Edgerton forced
her to submit to a very painful opera
ton at the hands Of doctor in Helena,
whose name is not given on account of
his family. She says it was against her
wishes that she did submit, and only
when her husband stated that she
should if he had to bind her hand and
foot and gag her did she yield. While
the operation was about to be performed
the doctor made a criminal assault upon
her, which she repelled. After she re-
covered from the operation she told her
husband Of: the doctors conduct and
he paid no attention to it, but still COM
PEELED her and her son to receive treat
ment from the doctor. Mrs. Edgerton is
SUNG for separate maintainance and
$4,000.
The case is now pending on motion
to pay her alimony during the trial She
has another case in Jefferson county to
set aside the divorce obtained at Bill
ings. The only reason she gives for
prosecuting her case here is that she
wants the means of livelihood and is des-
titute.
District Court.
The following cases have<abeen dis
posed of in the district court during the
week:
Sophia NJ. Wetzstein VS.. Hattie M. Joy
ct al. Demurrer to answer sustained
and defendants given ten days IN which
to tile amended answer.
In the matter of the estate of James
Thereaux, deceased. Upor due proof
letters of administration ordered issued
to petitioner, Josephine Their eaux, upon
her executing bond in the sum of $500,
and taking the oath prescribed by law.
In the matter of the estate of George
Thomas, deceased. Upon due proof
final account of administrator approved
and decree of distribution signed and
filed.
In the matter of the application of
Peter H. Brandser to become a citizen
of the United States. Upon due proof
applicant admitted to citizenship.
Maurice Roth vs.. John Curl Defend
ants motion for non-suit taken under
advisement by the court.
Ross Bros. vs.. George j. Jackson.
Case dismissed by plaintiffs as settled
Babcock & Miles VS.. Ellen L. Kennedy.
Defendants motion to retaX costs over
ruled.
Ellen L. Kennedy VS.. C. w. Savage ct
al. Defendant withdraws demurrer and
allowed to file answer.
Thomas S. Thompson vs. Rhodia f.
Thompson. Decree of divorce granted
A. J. M. Hosom VS.. F. w. Wright treas
urer of Park county. Motion to strike
cut portions of defendants answer sus-
tanned.
w. p. Mulholland vs.. Mrs. William
Smith. Default of defendant entered
and judgment for plaintiff for s215 and
costs of $1O.55.
In the matter of the estate of Charles
H. Sowl Order to show cause why or
der should not he made signed and filed.