The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-09-17
Thought He Could Disobey an
Order of the Court.
HE DREW OUT THE MONEY
BUT HAS GOT. TO REPLACE IT Or
GO TO JAIL.
Mrs. EIdora Rose Allowed Alimony
and Costs of Her Suit-Mrs. Kent
Gets Divorce By Defauit-A
Row in the Jacobson-Croft Fam
ifies-UnseasonabIe Duck Shooters

The hearing on the motion for alimo-
ny by the plaintiff and on motion of
the defendant to dissolve restraining
order in the divorce suit of Caroline
Chapman VS.. Joseph Chapman. came
up before Chief Justice Merritt yester-
day afternoon.
The grounds on which the divorce
was asked were cruelty, it being al
legged that the defendant kicked his
wife inflicting permanent injuries and
also that he on numerous occasions had
struck her in the face with his fist
and otherwise bruised and wounded
her and called her vile names.
Habitual drunkenness was also al
legged The defendant was said to be
worth about $4,000, of which $4,000 was
in bank and to be earning 500 a week
as a briclllayer.
An order restraining him from dis
posing of his property was issued on
July 25, the time the suit was filed.
He filed an answer denying that he is
habitual drunkard, or that he has
treated his wife in a cruel, and inhu-
man manner; he also denies the state
ment about having money in the bank,
and ali other charges made against
him in the complaint. He admits that
both parties have inf1rmities of temper,
but he has condoned them on her part,
and believed she had done so with re-
gard to him. He says she has been
induced to bring this suit by rneddling
third parties
Drew Out the Money.
George NJ Cannon, cashier of Zion's
Savings Bank and Trust company, was
the first witness, and was required to
produce the account with the defend
ant, which he did They show that
August 2, 1895, the defendant withdrew
81, 1882, all he had, from the bank; on
July 81, $50 had been drawn by Mr..
Chapman.
Colonel Kaighn said he had drawn
the answer to the case in good faith,
and the testimony about the money in
the bank was a surprise to him. He
had no idea from his client, the plain
tiff, that it was there. Under the cir
cumstances, he believed temporary ali
mony should be granted.
Mrs. Chapman's attorney, Walter
Murphy, called the attention of the
court to the fact that after the order of
the court made July %, the defendant
had ignored that order The answer
made by Colonel Kaighn was verified
on August 2.
Judge Merritt said the next proceed
ing order was to punish the defendant
for contempt of court
The defendant, Joseph Chapman,
said he thought the real estate, and
not the money was included in the
order of the court
Deputy Marshal Timmony said he
had served the order July %. and in
reply to the defendant had told him
he could not draw any money from the
bank.
Judge Merritt said that if the defend
ant did not forthwith re-deposit the
money in the bank, the court would
see whether or not he would treat the
courts order with contempt in that
fashion. If the money is not re-
deposited in the bank the defendant
would have to go to jail.
Colonel Kaighn asked until tomor-
row, as he would probably withdraw
from the case; but the court said nc
blame was on the attorney, and Chap
man must deposit the money by 10 a.
m. today or be punished for contempt
He must also pay 500 attorneys fee
$25 expenses and $40 a month tempo
rary alimony.