The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-12-24
The Smith Case the Most Fla
grant on Record.
COURT CENSUREs WITNESSES
Mrs. Smith Granted Decree and
$500 AIimOny.
Pindar Held for Adultery -Galleazzi a gain
in Contradictions Filed and Judg-
ments Rendered in All the
Courts.

The divorce case OF Maggie Smith vs..
Charles Smith was resumed in the Third
district court yesterday, and did not reach
Judge Zane for his decision until lew
minutes prior to O'Clock. Taking the
case and viewing it in detail, it can justly
be entitled one of the most fragrant that
has ever been tried at the bar of the west,
and according to The ruling Of his honor
it can safely be said that large majority
of the extreme acts of cruelty alleged on
the part OF the defendant toward the
plaintiff were clearly proven. This is not
Mr.. Smiths first experience in the line
OF conJugal infelicity, as he had been dl-
vorced from one wife prior to his marriage
TO the present Mrs. Smith.
The main issue which was fought by
the attorneys III the case, was with ref
erence 10 certain property which Smith
owned before his last marriage, and
which he transferred to one Morgan. The
plaintiff asked for decree for Smith s in
terest in the same, while the de-
fendant fought the claim, but
at the same time declaring
that his transfer to Morgan was bona
fide and that he now owned no interest in
it. 1t was intimated by counsel for the
plaintiff that Smith transferred the
property to avoid the payment Of alimony
to his first wife. In passing upon the
case Judge Zane said:
1.-THE marriage which the plaintiff here
seeks to annul is one of those unfortunate
affairs which now and then come before
a court. According to the testimony of
the plaintiff her husband has been guilty
of many acts of cruelty toward her, some
of his conduct being extreme. He refers
TO the incidents himself, but denies
the cruelty, alleging that they were mere
trivial matters. As the plaintiffs testi-
mony is corroborated, l think the charges
of cruelty are sustained by the evidence.
As TO the aImOny it seems that the
plaintiff is without means and has an in
liant child. also think that the evidence
OF the defendants ability to pay alimony
is conflicting, as it all depends upon a
deed to his property which he executed
to Morgan. The question arises
as to whether the property be-
longs to Smith or not But
] have but little doubt that the deed
from Smith to Morgan was fraudulent.
Morgan s testimony on this point was
contradictory and evasive and consider
it a place when such a witness should be
dealt with by criminal procedure. Nor
gan talked like he. was telling an untruth.
lie stated that he got the money to pay
for the property from one briggs, but
briggs fatty contradicts the statement
and says that he didn' t suppose he was to
pay any money on the note which figured
IN the transaction. The testimony OF
briggs, though, was also unreasonable
and l don't believe that he told all he
knew. / don't think, however. that
Morgan got any money from him. The
deputy sheriff who served the injunction
on Morgan to prevent him disposing of
the property, swears that Morgan told
him that he had no interest In it, and
many things go to show that Morgan and
smith both acted fraudulenUly in the
matter and that briggs knew it.
Mr. Carlson s testimony was not as
candid as it should have been, and the
testimony of all these witnesses calls for
the condemnation of the court and of all
men who love truth and fairness.
s'There is also conflicting testimony
with regard to the value of the property
but l would Judge that it was worth about
SIC, 600 We're it not incumbered.
81 am disposed TO grant the plaintiff her
decree and the custody of her child.
viii allow her allmony IN the sum OF
S2,oC0, payable in installments of $500 each
every six months, beginning Jan. 1, 1898,
the total sum to be adjudged first lien
on the defendants property, excepting q
judgement recently rendered against it.
SHORT ORDERS.
j. Newman ct al VS.. l. A. Benton
Injunction desired and restraining order
set aside and vacated.
T. Beattie ct al. VS.. Rumanza Diel Ell
al dismissed on motion of the plaintiff.
S. s. Ferrill VS.. n. ii. Groesbeck ct al.
defendents elect to stand on answer and
give notice of appeal.
z. Fritsch VS.. J johnson ct al. /; motion
to dismiss case overruled and leave given
to amend complaint.
JUDGMENTS ENTERED.
The following judgments have been
entered in the Third district court:
Zion's Savings Bank and Trust COM
pany VS.. Daniel w. McAllister ct al.
Judgment for plaintiffs for 81, 112 and
costs.
Margaret E. Bourk VS. William Yates
ct al. judgment for sale and par tition in
favor of the plaintiff.
North American Savings, Loan and
Building company VS. Carl q. Nielsen Ell
al; judgment for plaintiff for 81 ,00S. So,
and 81, 795 1.-TWO cases..
L. c. CroSsman VS.. William Torrea
judgment in favor of plaintiff for delivery
OF deed to certain property.
Elijah A.. Whitaker VS.. James E. Full
ton; decree of foreclosure in favor OF
plaintiff for 81 1872. SO and costs.
Wells, Fargo & Co. VS.. Frederick a..
Mitchell; decree of foreclosure for plain
tiff for S., 421.
Butler Bros. VS.. u. Alexander & Co. +;
Judgment for plaintiff by default for S72a
and costs.
A. /. Smith ct al. vs.. Marion NJ. Rock
ledge; decree in favor of defendan for
81, 030 and casts.
Probate Con TT