Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1895-02-13
THE MOTHER WINS.
JUDGE MACK ORDERS THE BABY TO
HER ARMS.

Yesterday the case of Gardner VS..
Gardner, came up before Judge Mack
| in the District Court
The plaintiff, Mrs. Ida Gardner, is
a young woman of very attractive ap.
pearance and about twenty years Of
age. She is a graceful brunette,
known as the belle of Smith val
ley, and the oldest daughter of John
Rodgers Of Wellington.
In 1890 she was woed and won by
James Gardner, son Of Major Gard
ner, of this city.
The fair plaintiff in her complaint.
alleges drunkenness, gaming, failure
to provide and threats to kill, as
cause for legal separation and GUS
tody Of the child. They were married
August 9th, 1890, and yesterday when
on the stand the plaintiff stated that
the trouble between them began few
weeks after the ceremony which made
them man and wife.
There was quite crowd in the
Court room. at the trial, because it
was rumored that cross charges Of in
fidelity on the part Of his wife were to
be made by Gardner the defendant,
but when Mr.. WOODBURY., for the plain
tiff, asked the question of Mr.. Gard
ner, if he had not caused her mental
trouble by charge Of infidelity and
also threatened her life, the defense
through Mr.. Torreyson, objected on
the ground that no such charge had
been made. The Court sustained the
objection and those who came to hear
sensational developments concluded
that there was not much in the case
except a desire for separation because
Of incompetence and cruelty.
The plaintiff testified that defendant
had threatened to blow the top Of her
head off if she left him. She had left
him in 1894 and lived with herparents
ever since. She also alleged that he
had also threatened to kill the child if
an attempt was made to take it.
The Court adjourned until o'clock.
At O'Clock the Court reassembled
and Mr. Woodburn, attorney for the
plaintiff, presented four affidavits
from parties who had heard Mr.. Gard
ner the defendant state that under no
circumstances could the plaintiff have
the child; also that she was a good
woman.
The affidavits set forth that the
child had been abducted, and defend
ant had stated his determination to
keep the child, at all hazards. That
the child was under three years of age
needing its mothers care, said mother
being a person whose character was
above suspicion.
The affidavits were made by A. W.
Clark, Sarah E. Roberts, J S. Stev-
ems and the mother of the plaintiff.
The Court held that the mother had
the same right as the father and that
the father had possessed the child for
some time. The. Court ordered the
child placed in the custody OF the
mother Immediately.
The attorneys for the defense stated
tn at the child was not in the custody
Of the father. That about ten days
ago, unknown to the father, some one
had taken the child away. and he was
unable to tell where the child was.
The Court remarked: This is a
gross outrage"
Il had nothing to do with it, said
Mr.. Torreyson.
II don't think you had. Ii 1
thought so I should speak very
sharply from the BENCH" announced
the Court
The defense then asked until Thurs
day to furnish counter affidavits. 1t
was given. and the Court issued an
order for the defendant to produce
the child Immediately or ne would
have to answer for his conduct.
1t is claimed on the streets that
Major Gardner ST. has taken the child
to California. Gardner will be jailed
for contempt if the child is not pro-
duced by tomorrow.