Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-05-19
AGAINST HER HUSBAND.
An Extraordinary Case Likely 10
Come Up Before the Third
District Court.

A suit Of sausual interest was plant.
ell yesterday afternoon In the clerks
office Of the Third district court. Mrs.
Ida Hughes Is plaintiff aud John IL.
Hughes and j. A. Earls, capitalists,
and Charles Baldwin, attorney, are
tho defendants.
The allegation OF the plaintiff Is that
ON March ., 1850, shc was married TO
the defendant, John IL. Hughes; that
on April Is, 1900, said defendant
falsely represented that he was DESTROYS
Of disposing OF his property In this city
and winding up his business affairs,
and removing with his wife to 6alida,
aud requested her 10 precede him to
that place, stating that he would follow
~ soon ~ he had settled his business
affairs here; that he further rcp resent
ed that II was necessary 10 convey 10
Charles Baldwin certain real estate
owned by Hughes IN lot 4, block 81, plat
A, valued at $4,000; that Baldwin was
to receive nm absolute deed for the
premises, but had 10 hold II ns trustee
FOR tho plaintiff and was 10 sell II for
81, 800, Of which $500 was TO be pild
In cash at the time of tale, $1,000 In
ono year aud $1,000 In two years, and
that after dlscharging a mortgage Of
$1,000 on the property and paying $1,000
10 tho east sidc hotel syndicate, Bald.
win was 10 pay 10 tho plaintiff one
third Of the balance OF the price, namely,
$1,000. that being her dover interest;
that the plaintiff, relying upon tho
representations made, Joined with her
husband and executed the deed 10
Baldwin, and Hughes falsely repre-
scented 10 her that the instrument
would be placed In escrow In Wells.
Fargo a Co.'s bank, and that Baldwin
oined with him In all tho fraudulent
Representations In order 10 prevent her
from having her dover In the premises;
that these representations were wholly
falSe and were made with Intent 10 dc.
fraud tho plaintiff and In pursuance OF
plan contrlved by Hughes and bald.
win to fraudulently obtain Judgment
OF divorce against tho plaintiff
on the alleged ground Of de.
sertion, ETC.; that In April.
$500, after the execution and de-.
livery Of the deed, tho plaintin, ut the
instance Of her husband, went to Salids
10 reside, and he at various times wrote
10 her stating that he would joIn her:
that on April 2s, 1900, being about one
year after the plaintiff went 10 SalIdn.
Hughes commenced nm action in M
Third district court against plaintifI.
praying for decree OF divorce on tho
ground OF deaertion, Baldwin A Tat.
lock being his attorneys; that on
August 20, 1890, Baldwin executed n
deed TO the premises mentioned 10 j.
A. Earls; that this latter deed WINS
made without consideration; and in
furtherance OF the fraudulent plan Ia
deprive the plaintiff OF her rieht az
dover, and that In taking the deed
Earls had full notice Of piaintifi,s in.
terest In the property.
Plaintiff asks that II be adjudgcd and
decreed that atall the times mentioned
she had dowable interest In the prem.
Ises; that as against the plaintiff the
deed Of Hughes and plaintiff TO Raid.
win IL good, and that II be sot AL e M
far M II affects the interests OF the
plaintiff; that rs against the pIaintli,.
the deed given by Baldwin 10 Earls ~
void; that Baldwin lie decreed trustee
Of the plaintiff, holding for her us,.
and benefit one.third Of Said premises.