The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-08-30
STILL SEPARATING.
The Divorce Market is Unusually
BOuyant.
Misflt Couples Take up the Time OF His Honor
New Suits Brought - Police
and Probate

Judge Zane held court in chambers yes
terday, aud the inevitable divorce case
came up in the afternoon. The parties
were Anna Biorkman and Andrew Bjork-
man, who were married in Sweden in 1868
and came to this country several years ago.
Mrs. Bjorkman showed that her husband
had deserted her some time ago, and since
then had contributed nothing to her sup
port. The defendant made no defense, and
a decree was granted on the grounds
stated.
HUGHES vs.. HUGHES.
The divorce suit of John Hughes Vs.
Ida Hughes was next taken up for
hearing upon the order requiring
the defendant to show cause why
he should not be punished for contempt in
falling to pay alimoDy as directed by the
court. Hughes, it will be remembered
brought suit to obtain divorce from his
wife on the ground that she had deserted
him. Mrs. Hughes was in Salida at the
time, but she promptly returned to the
city, put in On answer denying this allega-
ton and filed cross complaint alleging
that the plaintiff had abandoned her aud
that the whole thing was a scheme 10 rob
| her out of her interest in certain real estate
held by Hughes. Pending q hear ng, an
order was made directing the plaintiff to
pay into court certain sum for the main
tenance of his wife, and for COSTS
The first payment was made, but
he failed TO make the second
payment and this hearing was the result
Hughes testified that his failure to pay the
money was due to the fact that he did not
have it and could not get it. He had some
property in Salida which he was trying to
dispose of, and as he intended to apply the
proceeds TO the payment of this alimony
Judge Zane took the matter under advise
nent for week, which practically gives
Hughes an extension of time in which to
obey the order of the court.
CARUTHEs VS.. cARUTHEs.
The case Of Caruthes Us. Caruthes was re-
ferred to ]. b. Timmoney.
SMITH VS.. SMITH.
In the divorce case of Maggie Smith VS..
Charles Smith, the defendant was ordered
to appear on September 3. and show cause
why he should not pay temporary alimony.
AN ORDER FOR SERVICE.
In the case of Critchlow VS. Cullen ct al,
an order was made of service by pablica-
! ton.
M'KIMMINs VS., M'KIMMINs.
Another divorce suit was commenced in
the Inlrd district court yesterday, the
plaintiff being Mrs. Jane McKimmins and
the defendant William McKimmins. liz
her complaint the plaintiff alleges that she
was married to the defendant ia this citS
IN May, 1888; that on August Is, 1890, the
defendant deserted her, and for more than
a year past has utterly failed to contribute
to her support; that she does not now
know where ne is or whether he is alive OF
dead. For these reasons she asks for de
cree OF divorce.
PARTNERSHIP TROUBLES.
Charles B. Davey has brought sui
against F'erobabel Wood, aud in his com
plant he alleges that in 1890 he entered
into partnership with the defendant fol
the manufacture of glue, oil, tallow, etc.
that on May Q, 1891, the defendant took ex
elusive possession of the partnership
goods and stock, aud has continued the
business Oh his own account, preventing
the plaintiff from participating therin
Wherefore he asks that the partnership bt
dissolved. that a receiver be appointed anI
that the defendant be restrained from in
terfering with the property, and that tn
assets be divided between the partners &C
cordiug to their respective rights.
S. w. Darke is the plaintiffs attorney.