The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-08-17
Typewriting, room Is Bailey block.
Edserton VS.. Edcerton.

IuStTlOu vs.. ILGStrlOn.
To THE ED1roR:-The article published in
this mornings issue of YOU paper is
wholly misleading as to the present status
of the litigation pending between the parties
named, and, l am forced to believe, de-
signedly SO; though HE INDEPENDENT Was
no doubt an innocent instrument of the in
justice. 1t is calculated to create the i'm
preston that the suits have been virtually
decided against the plaintiff. Such is not
at all the fact: her attorneys have unim-
paired confidence in that she will secure
the eelief that she asks for, and would
have little respect for courts of Justice if
they felt otherwise.
There are two suits between the parties
pending in the district court of this
county. The first was brought to expunge
the record of a decree of divorce entered in
Yellowstone county. The pretended di-
vorce was granted On the ground that the
wife had deserted her husband and bad
wilfully absented herself from him for the
space of four years; whereas the proof is
abundant that they lived together as man
and wife the very month that the divorce
was procured. There was no
served on her in this case, and the only
pretext of jurisdiction rests in a letter
authorizing an attorney to appear for her,
from her by the display of a revolver &C
companied by threats against her life.
h amended complaint of Mrs. Edger-
ton in her action to annul the decree SO OBJ
tanned was demurred to by the defendant,
and on the ?lst ult. this demurrer was over
ruled. This fact you article singularly
omits even to mention, though it devotes
liberal space to a decision made at the
Sd me time in the other case. The first case
will accordingly be ready for trial as soon
as the defendant has filed his answer; and
his eounse have already stated that they
will make no other defense than the statute
of limitations.
The other action was brought to compel
the defendant to make provision for the
support of the plaintiff and their child. The
defendants demurrer to the plaintiffs COM
plant in this case was sustained on the
ground that an action for separate mainte-
nance can not be supported independently
of an action for divorce; that the relief Is
ancillary only. This question is one upon
which courts have greatly differed, but
Judge Hunt accepted the view contended
for by the defendant. This case will be i'm
mediately appealed to the supreme court.
Now. IN conclusion: Our supreme court
has recently wisely opened q wide field for
the discussion by the press of courts and
their proceedings; but its opinions will be
examined in vain for any language that en-
courages what is sometimes called trial by
newspaper Litigants have a right to a
trial by an impartial jury, and this can
hardly be assured to them if papers publish
erroneous statements about their cases in
the community from which the jurors must
be taken. Public opinion is almost newt
ably represented in a greater or less degree
IN the jury box-sometimes, perhaps, from
the bench-and it ought to be kept free
from bias. The very liberty that the courts
extend to the press implies a correlative
duty not to abuse it. b,
Helena, August Is.