The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-12-31

.
! is true As TO how far her husband
compelled her there may be room Tor
doubt. She states that he substan-
tally compelled her. I do not under
stand that by force he did 1t, but by
inducements and persuasiOns. by his
statements that he mada 70 her. he IN
effect compelled her TO submit TO that
abortion. She states that that was IN
1885, and she states further that she was
very sick as the result of it; that she
was threatened with blood poisoning;
that they telegraphed for her mother,
saw her The mother came and
waited on her, and she recovered. The
defendant is corroborated in this by
4 her mother In fact the plaintiff does
not dleny that an abortion was COM
mitted. nor does this doctor get on the
stand and deny it.
4 In 1889 it seems that again, as the
defendant states, the plaintiff induced
her to submit to another abortion,
and that this DR. Simmons would not
produce it, and then that the plaintiff
took her TO Kansas City, where it was
effected; that he promised her seal
skin cloak, and a, visit TO her rela-
tyes in Indiana; that she took the
visit, other evidence shows; that she
got the sealslSin cloak, which appears
from letters in evidence. She states
the circumstances, and the plaintiff
does not deny that he took his wife
there. He does not deny that he paid
the physician or surgeon for it; and
the court can reach no other conclu-
sion than that this man induced his
wife, or at least agreed with her, to
have these two abortions performed
If so, though she may have consented,
still when a woman is in that delicate
and critical condition, the husband
who induces her to have an abortion
performed on her. or advises it or con
sents to it is more TO be censured than
the woman. With the woman, in her
helpless condition, in her distress, the
/ father of the unborn child inducing it,
encouraging it, and employing a sur
geon to perform it, is a wretch who
cannot be characterized too strongly.
He has no regard for conscience He
has no regard for the unborn child.
He has but little regard for the life
of his wife because those often opera
tons often result in death to the mother
In view of all the evidence (and the
court will not take further time to re-
fer to iD I am of opinion that the evil
dence upon the issue of adultery is
against the plaintiff AS to the allie
cation of cruelty, there is the testi-
mony of Mrs. Burns, Mrs. Goodwin and
young Mr.. Goodwin. The young man,
who heard the defendants screams,
seems to have testified with candor,
and he is corroborated by his mother
and Mrs. Burns. l saw nothing in his
testimony that would indicate that he
was not telling the truth. There is
also the testimony of Mrs Hogin, OF
an occurrence that took place III 1888,
when she was at Mr.. Irvine's house.
when he made a charge against his
wife there, and confessed afterwards
that he was wrong about it and asked
her pardon. He charged her with be-
ing lewd woman IN substance, and
told her to pack her trunk and go home
with her sister, that he would not
live with her. It is true that he does
not deny the conversation, although he
does deny the language used But I
see no reason to disbelieVe Mrs. Hogin.
It was something in which she was in
terested. She says that after he went
out, early in the evening, she sat up
until / O'Clock, when he returned, in
order to talk with him about it, and
that she did talk to him. The proba-
bilities are that neither of those per-
sons have forgotten it. Mrs. Hogin,
as we'll as his wife, contradictS him.
1t is true there is evidence contradict
ing the wife on some material points.
but they are not so important, and the
contradictions are not of such a char
acter as those contradictions of the
plaintiff. The contradictions between
him and Mr. Smith. between him and
Mrs. Hogin. between the plaintiff and
Mrs. Wilson. between the plaintiff and
Mr.. and Mrs. Austin, are of such a
character that they cannot be recon
ciled and they can hardly be mistaken
One or the other has sworn falsely with
respect to it; and the court must be-
lieve these witnesses who have thus
contradicted him
In view Of the evidence the court is
/ of the opinion that the charge of
cruelty as defined in the statutes of
/ Utah is sufficiently established. The
statute is. "Cruel treatment of plaintiff
! by the defendant to the extent of caus-
| ing great bodily injury or great mental
distress to plaintiff" 1t is not neces-
sary FOR the court to find that this
cruelty caused great bodily injury to
the defendant (tlle plaintiff in the cross
conplainD. 1t is SUFFICIENT if the evil
dence shows cruel treatment causing
great mental distress to the defendant
/ have no doubt that the cruelty shown
in this case established by a, prepon-
derance of the evidence. caused this
defendant great mental distress and a.
divorce will be granted on that ground
The custody of the child with the de-
PENDANT follows as a matter of course
'I would like to sound the praise of
Hoods Sarsaparilla over the entire uni
verse" writes Mrs. Longenecker of
Union Deposit, Penn. so