Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-01-04
A MOTHER.N.LAW.
She Cats a Prominent Figure ID a
Wii5'S Suit for Divorce.
THE HUSBAND MAKES ANSWER
lie Thinks that $4,000 is not 10
Much fnr tile Alienation VI
WHEY An ctlun.

'An NifViN' FhtN NlNuEut " btAhlo
RldobcCk against her husband, FL.
ward W. Riiobeck, on the ground Of
failure to provide, came up Tor hearing
before Judge Bartoh, Ia the Third
district court this morning.
Tho plaintiff was represented by
Attorney Markham; Judge Bowman
was council Or the defendant
On tue part Of the plaintiff it Ia
sisted iu the complaint that the parties
intermarflct In salt Lake county on
October End, 1880, aud there IL ons
child, girl, aged about eighteen
monIhs. Mu. 10 iobsok states that
since the marriage her husband has
continuously failed aud refused 10 pro.
vide for her and her child, though
abundanty aols 10 do 20. There are
also allegation Of cruelty, consisting
mainly Of abusive language. No per.
slnai violence l. charged.
All these things arc denied by the
defendant In his answer. He declares
that he has always amply provided
tor his wife. II snys that on March
| .3rd, 1892, she lott him, against his
| will, anu has refused 20 return, al
though repeatedly requested. Not.
withstanding thir, aud that she had
taken the child with her, he had fur.
Lished her with means 20 live upon.
lie ASKS that he be awarded the ouslO-
dy Of the child 40 long aa his wife con.
tiDuos TO live part from him.
Ia a supplemental arswet ami cross.
! complaint liDdobsuk charges that on
Dec. 23rd, 1892, hia wis committed
adultery with Gus George Mishs aud
AZ iiyefs times WITH other men, And
that sue IL therefore an uiht psnDn T.
have the custody vi the child. lac
alatos that che miulicals the hg.lu
cue, has no ansolos for n, ami
that siuce thv,r separation Il has
been placed with people living ia Too.
elo county, wbiie t"o mother has buen
fesiaitg In this city. Mr.. R3jobcck
pays for decree VI divorce ana Hsks
that his wile's complaint 10 dis-
missed.
10 this tue plaiutin replies, denying
| tho allegations % Aluitnry Aui ths
mistftntineni u the nnili, hut admits
that Il has been placed temporarily Ia
county. The reason Tor shis was, how
ever, thai ahe herself hal To go out and
work iof livelihood. Bh8 aeknuwi-
edges having refusal, at times, 20 allow
her husband W bave tho care II tie
child, fsafing that he would take 10 by
force or stealth, which sIucu tbs CONF
msncomUnt VI tniH action he bad A..
tempted 10 DO. She asks thai the de-
fenuGnt's prayer Ue denied, anu that
Sue be granted permanent alimony on
proof OF her case.
Ontbe wintrss.stand Mrs. RJdobeck
admitted. Ia answer 10 Judge bowman,
that the deitndent had on several oc-
Casions desired her 10 return u him,
Uut she had docliued because she
could not believe IN his promises ~ 10
the iuture. IL appeared also that tho
cruelty consisted IN his having caused
her mental distress. he had threat.
eutd, she said, ~ take stry chninr, ami
had stated that ~ sh1 got her divorces
lac would kali the first man she nj.
tempted to 10 With"
The RodOOuck, appear TO have been
Ia hot water all along, aud mother.
in.law (Mr.. Clarke figures ptomi-
nsntly al the domestic troubles Of
husband Hui vile. A. the present
time there 10 an action Tor $4,000
pending IN the Third District Count,
the Famo having been brought by MI
RJdybvOk against the motneT'lu.lHw
Tor the alienation OF his wiie's AtfJo.
ton.
Mrs. Clarke was one OF the witnesses
ON the stand this morning. She denied
that she iuteriersd unnecessarily bs.
tween the parties, but SAID she had
found a. necessary 10 go to the comfort
OF her daughter AMI child, at times.
Her daughter would "bsar all aud fret
until she was ~ thin AS "a skeluton."
10 Judge Bowman's question tue Hit-
NESS tall sue knew tnst often when
Mt. RodoUeok returned home his wife
was nj her house, but she had never
persuaded her not ~ 10 10 him. Wit
meas voluntarily admitted having been
a. "eaVesdropper" ON one occasion
when RodObeck was using abusive
language toward his wife; but she was
unable 10 hear what was said.
The defendant and his witnesses
then testified, Rodobeck declaring that
he had always provided for his vile
aud child TO tle best " his ability. His
WHO had tho "hAndllng Of the money"
aud could get what shs needed The
plaintiff had stated IN evidence thaton
occasions, there had been neither food
nor fuel In tue house; but this tho de-
tsndant c0nlTadlcted. When witness
had returned home IT, IN the canyon iu
the winter time, after his day's W ORR
was over, cold, and his clothes frozen 90
him, he found his wife was ACROSS az
her Mothers, the breakfast things SIN
on the table M when ho left ~ the
mOruing. when he went to fetch her
hume she would reply That she should
come when she pleased, "And did co.
added RodObeck. "She would some
times return after had gone to bed
and sometimes not At all" he
never used abusive language towards
his wife, nor abused her In any other
way. His mother.iu.law had declared
that she would separate them, aud
when he was seen coming along the
street the child WINS taken out OF hh
way. Witness said he never ti0urlshed
a revolver Ia the face " either his VIE
or her mother nor, threatened 70 shoot
them, as they had alleged. His wife
had told him, however that unless no
kept away from her she would have TO
drown heEselt anu child, rs her ma
would never allow him 10 come back
The domestic miserius were gone into
In detail, RodoUeck saying no had
always been ready 70 support his wife
and little daughter.