The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-01-03

tlon BY plaintiff and defendant as has
band and wife. and she birth Of four chill
dren ~ the reault thereof. Again, theFe 10
the. action Of defendant In obtaining the
Mosaic divorce. Agaiu. there is the inn
plied ndmissionsof the marriage by defend
ant IN a charge against the plaintiff for
aduiterv. 10 10 our opinion that thsfe was
an ample . ina facis showing up which
the district court was justified In granting
the alimony aud oounsel fee.
Another point presented is that IL does
not appear that Flnkelstein has the faculty
and ability 20 pay nlimony. 10 does appear
that he 10 conducting a large tailoring busi-
ness. and plaintiff claims that the business
is in fact his own, and IL being fraudulently
conducted ia the name OF Sarah Finkel-
stein, the person defendant claims 10 DO bis
wife. Defendant, on tha other hand, says
that tins business belongs 20 Sarah. hat
In any event. II does appear. without con
tradiotion. that the defendant 10 engaged
in cond uctlna this business and II he we're
able 10 do so. 10 IL q fair showing that be
has the faculty and ability 90 earn money
10 nay tho moderate sam allowed by the
court in this case - alimony aud counsel
fees"
The ruling Of the district court lie
All med.
The opinion in the case Of Lille MORT
son, plaintiff, We sus Alex NJ. X. Morrison.
n .pellant, was wfitten by Associate Justice
HARDWOOD, Chef Justice Fsunbsrton con-
curing. Jusiics DsWitt did not sit ia the
case, having been connected with the case
In its early stages. Mrs. Morrison obtained
divorce and the custody Of four Infant
children, together with Alimony and costa
of suit The grounds were habitual drunk
enness. extreme cruelty, and false nocusa-
tions Of intidelity 70 her mar iage VOWS.
The Jury in the district court gave her
gene al verdict Of divorce and custody Of
the children, aud a special verdict allowing
her half OF the 100000 shares OF Golden
Gate mining stock he owned. motion
for anew trial was overruled an Morrison
appealed. IL was claimed that the court
erred in allowing the iury 10 pass on special
findings. The supreme court says there IL
no statute forbiIdinq special findings in
such cases. IL was also urged that the gen
efai verdict should be set aside. because the
jury did not ind whether or not the parties
coha bited together NJ 10 q certain time,
and that IL they did 10 would manifest con
donation. The jury did not 30 find" SAYS
the court. "and there Ia no ground for
claiming forgiveness or conformation of any
OF Mofrison's ofenses." Ills ooLduct was
continuous
The third speci 6cation was that she court
erred In allowing proof that he neglected. TO
provide necessariea for the support OF his
wife and child en-, bat left them destitute,
and thereby cast upon her the whole burden
of the chill rem 8 care and support. To sup
port them she secu ed employment At
teaching school and otherwise. Objection
was made to tno introduction Of this oVi-
dence on the ground that such neglect Is
not made BY statute cause for divorce Ia
this state. The supreme court admits that
neglect TO support the wife is not ground
for dive CO hers but say this Was proper sub
ieot for evidence. especially whore the record
shows that she case Was fully made out on
other Riounds. lhs order denying a new
trial 10 All med with costs.