The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-05-03

tion, from time to time, mako such alter
ntlons IN tile allowances OF Alimony and
maintananca, M shalt appear reasonable
and just.'
Y ahn hardly bo presumed tlnt tho legis.
laiure. while carefully providing for The
continuance o. the obligation Of tho hus,
band TO maintain his wife Mfter divorce
intended BY the statue to out off any juria-
simply enforce tha obligation whilc the
ponds o. matrim0ny still existed. A more
reasonable conclusion, wa think, il that the
statute under consideration manifesta , pd
sndh %lntentlon; bnt leaves tbs marital
IiRnts aud obligations before divorce to be
uealt With BY the courts in whatever re-
speot their Jurisdiction might allow.
We therefore return to the main aues-
ZION, as 70 whether there is in the equity
courts OF this state amy Jurisdiction to in
tsfIere on behalf Of q wife deserted and
1917 dsstltute without cause, and compel
ne husband, II able, to suppors her. This
snnlsot Pas led to 9 vefy close inveatiga-
ZION ~ tho American courts OF the manner
IN which this ohancery court Of England
dealt with such cases.
We Will close the inquiry upon this
branchSof the case by bringing TO view Ger
tam statutory and constitutional provis-
IONS OF this state. which, to some extent we
~, nAoAAA SHAuUuCe our 0e[GFm lnAGlO0s
mo statute provides that women shall
retain tho same legal existence and legal
personality after marriage a. before mar
rage. and shall receive the protection Of all
her rights As a woman, which her husband
zoos 40 z man; and for any injury sustained
70 her reputation. person. property, char
acssr, or any natural right, she shall have
alone to the courts of law or equity for re-
dress and protection that her husband has
70 appeal in his own. name alonc.'' Our
constitution provides TINT "the district
courts shall have original jurisdiction in all
cases az law and in equity y = and
are not otherwise provided for" And.
turther' that there shall be but one
form Of OWL action and that Inv
ana equity may bs administered in the
same action" And further shat courts Of
justice shall be open TO every person, and a
speedy remedy afforded for evsiy injury Of
person. property Or character. and that
right Il justice ehall be administes cd
without sale. denial or delay" With these
provisions before us, in addition to the
grounds OF equity jurisdiction. considered,
We are drawn to the conclusion that our
courts are invested with a jurisdiction
broad enough to give proper and adequate
question:. IN proper cases where it is shown
that sucn jurisdiction ought to be exercised,
and that such remedy lies within the equity
jurisdiction Of our district courts.
The second proposition Of law to be de-
in this case will be developed by
9 prlef statement Of facts set forth in
plaintiffs complaint. Among other things
1T is alleged that the plaintiff and dofen-
dant intermarried on or about the 9Th day
OF September, 1879. at Watkin Glen. Schuy-
Ter county. state Of New York, and lived to-
gether as man and wife until Oct. "a. 1886;
that from September, 1882, until October,
1856. they resided in the city of Helena,
territory Of Montana; that in May, 1887. de-
PENDANT, without any cause or provocntion
on the part Of the plaintiff, wilfully aban-
doned and deserted her. and compelled her
70 i've separate and apart from him; that
from the last date up to about seven months
prior TO the commencement of this action,
defendant contributed tho sum of $50 per
month, ana at times $75 per month, for
months last past defendants has neglected
and refused, and still refuses, to furnish
plaintiff any money whatever, and that she
Is wholly without means of support.
ana 1s entirely dependent upon her personal
and the contributions of her
TRENDS, for tie support OF herself and i'll
FAINT son, the issue Of said marriage, now In
care and custody.
mat about April "a, 1887, at the city and
state OF New York, defendant, by threats
ana menaoes, compelled plaintiff to write
and align, as dictated by defendant, letter
authority addressed to Il. y. Weed, Eau,
IN attorney at law. residing. and engaged
the practice of law, at the city of Helena,
OF Montana, authorizing him to.
appear ns her counsel in action which de-
PENDANT proposed to nj against her
TO obtain q divorce from the bonds of mat
.lmony e>~ting between plaintiff and de-
lenaant; that when defendant had thus
compelled the writing of said letter by
plaintiff. he took the same into his possess
'ion; that thereafter plaintiff requested de-
tendant to DESTROY said letter, aud that he
hen told plaintiff, in order to deceive and
tefraud heI, that he had DESTROYED said
etter; but that contrary to such statement,
defendant retained said letter in his pos-
esslon, and thereafter presented the same
hat plaintiff desired said letter to be de-
lvered to him, and desired him to appear
or plaintiff. and represent her in 81 divorce
proceeding to be commenced by the defend
'nt;' that thereafter said attorney np-
'eared as counsel for this plaintiff, in an
ctlon commenced in the district court OF
he Fourth judicial district of the territory
( Montana, within and for the county Of
by defendant herein, against
his plaintiff to obtain a divorce from her.
hat such proceedings were had in such ac-
ion as resulted in defendant obtaining
sa1u court q decree of divorce from
his plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that
he did not appear in said action, nor had
knowledge of the fact that said attor-
ey had appeared for her therein.
Respondent ~interposed a demurrer to
lis complaint, which was sustained by the
onrt, and plaintiff appealed from that
Appellants counsel succinctly state their
osition on this branch of the case, al ,ol-
Tvs: "Ars the parties hereto husband and
life? Is said decree void or voidable? II
Did, we will then claims that plaintiff ia the
ifo OF defendant. and is entitled to main ,
lin this action. If voldable, then we CON /
ode that We are premature in our action y !
Upon the view that said decree was not .
Did but only voidable in a proper proceed ,
x for that purpose the court sustained
spondent's demurrer, and in our opinion +.
10 ruling ia correct. The Judgment will :
be affirmed. I
Other Opinions. ,
State vs. Thomas Heron. The defendant
- tried in Deer Lodge county for threat l
ing to shoot George W. Nelson. The |
rrt below instructed the jury to acouit
arfon because there was no proof that the
n was loaded. The supreme court over y
les this and orders a new trial. Oninion