The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-03-13
DIVORCES GALORE
Three of Them Granted by
judge Anderson Yesterday.
GEORGE E. CRoZIER WILL FIGHT
He Answers Bis Wifes Complimentary
Motions Disposed OLA Brigham Mining
suit-Probate Court-Bench and Bar.

George E. CroZer, the handsome young
on the charge of adultery was followed by
divorce proceedings instituted by his wife,
evidently doesn't intend to let the case go
by default. He has employed Baldwin &
Tatlock to defend him, and yesterday he
| filed an answer to his wife's complaint. In
it be specifically denies that on December
20, 1891, at Bingham Junction, or at any
other place, he ever committed adultery,
and denies that by reason of his acts Or
declarations his wife refused to live with
him, but on the contrary alleges
that she earnestly solicited him to
allow her to live with him. He
then goes on to deny all of the
material allegations of the complaint and
by way of cross-complaint, alleges that he
has at all times conducted himself as be-
came truly dutiful and loving husband
! yet in February last the plaintiff maiclously
commenced d criminal proceeding against
him in which she wilfully and maliciously
c. arged him with the commission of the
crime of adultery: that this was all done
for the purpose Of degrading the defendant
which acts constituted cruel treatment, and
! he asks for a decree of divorce on that
| ground.
THREE DIVORCES GRANTED.
The divorce case of Mabel Whytock vs..
| Thomas Whytock came up before Judge
! Anderson yesterday. The defendant made
no appearance, and decree was grrnted
on the ground of desertion.
This was followed by the divorce case of
Henrietta Mckay VS.. Michael Mckay and a
decree was granted under the same cIrcum-
| stances.
| Emma j. Bynes obtained divorce from
James Bynes on the ground of desertion,
| the defendant being in default.
THE LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR
Judge Anderson disposed of the following
additional business yesterday:
j. H. Bailey VS.. IL. ClaWson ct al. de-
fault ordered.
Oquirrh Land and Water company VS..
Rudolph AIff ct al; demurred oyerruled
and ten days allowed to answer.
Colorado Midland VS.. E. G. Coffin; same
order.
d. Hirschler VS.. H. Bows; demurrer sus-
| tanned and two days allowed to amend
| II. Bews vs.. r. Hirschler; same order.
;. Woolf VS.. Joseph Dudler, motion to
retax costs overruled and motion for new
trial referred to Judge Zane.
d. p. Benson VS.. Salt Lake county: de-
murrer submitted.
L. l. Rogers vs.. J. V. Thomson ct al;
! passed Until MONDAY.
Frederick Burt VS.. A. w. Burt ct al /:
demurrer withdrawn and twenty days al
| lowed to answer.
John Forester VS.. the Sells Lime COM
pany; motion to strike out parts of the
answer sustained.
M. D. Clinton VS.. William Glasmann ct
al; demurrer withdrawn and ten DAYS al
| lowed to answer.
M. D. Clinton vs.. Bella Lynch ct al. de-
murrer withdrawn and ten days allowed to
answer.
S. b. Armour ct al. Us. Riverside M. &
E. Co.; demurrer submitted.
Utah and Montana Machinery company
vs.. Frank Hoffman ct al. {; demurrer con-
fessed and l.. E. Holden made party. Ten
days allowed TO amend the complaint and
cross-comp plant.
Mary S. McLaren ct al. VS.. A. G.. Bast ct
al. motion for q new trial passed.
w. H. II. Spsfford VS.. Walter Murphy ct
al. demurrer TO answer sustained. Motion
for judgment on pleadings overruled, and
ten days allowed to amend answer
Charles Hunt vs.. N. II. Groesbeck ct al.
demurrer sustained and ten days allowed
to answer.
Salt Lake Building and Manufacturing
company VS.. p. II. Lannan ct al. stay OF
proceedings until March II allowed.
j. G. Sharp ct al. VS.. Clifford Irwin Ell
al. demurrer overruled and twenty DAYS
allowed to answer.