The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-05-05
LOVES LAMP IS OUT
81
Divorce Matters are Giving the Courts
q Heap to Do. 4
iUsT A FEW SAMPLE CASES
n These Tales are True There are
a Lot of Mismated People In
Silver Bow County--Listen to
Their Tales OF Woe.

trict court to-day. The former grant
ed three DEGREES of absolute divorce.
and one annullment of marriage. and
passed on two other matters pertains
ing to divorce
Judge Mediation had the Gray and
Blume cases on his calendar this att
ernoon.
In the Gray case fine point Of law
was raised. The jury decided that both
parties We're guilty of offenses recog-
nized by law as grounds for divorce.
Mr. JCotter, attorney for Gray. moved
for the adoption of the jury's findings
to the effect that Mrs. Gray was gull
ty of adultery and for the entry OF
decree OF divorce in favor of Mr.. Gray.
Mr.. Wines, attorney for Mrs. Gray,
claims that, according to the common
law rulings. neither party could get
a divorce under the jury's findings. but
| Mr.. Cotter says there is a special stat
ute of the state under which he be-
iieves Mr.. Gray is entitled to a d.
vorce. Owing to a press OF other mat
| tiers the question was not argued TO-
| day and was continued until next Sat
| urday.
| AGAINST Virginia Blume will be called
| for trial in Judge McHatton's court
| on Monday and the prominence ana
| high social standing Of the parties
| makes the case one Of unusual inter-
est. 1t promises to be sensational.
/ The case came up this afternoon on
! the motion of Mr.. Haldorn, one OF
Mrs. !Blume's attorneys, for Dill OF
particulars regarding the allegations
of adultery made against his client.
He wanted names, dates and places
designated more particularly than CIV.
en- in the complaint. The charges OF
adultery cover a period of seven years,
| and Mr.. Haldorn wanted the charges
| confined to particular acts. Inc court
denied the motion on the ground that
II was made too late. the case being
at issue and set for trial. nt
| In the suit for annullment of mar
rage Of Charles j. O'Donnell against
Marguerite L. Walsh, alias Marguer-
ita l.. Price, alias Marguerite Lamita
Mazziotta, alias Marguerite Lamitta
O'Donnell, alias Viola May, testimony
was given before Judge Speer by the
plaintiff showing that at the time ne
married the defendant, May 20, 1892,
| she already had one husband or more
living. He testified that he was mar
| ried to her at Hope, idaho. A short
time after the marriage he discov-
| cred that she had been married to ia
cob Price at Great Falls on Nov. ~.
1890. She admitted that she had never
been divorced from Price ODonneil
had a copy of the certificate OF the
Great Falls marriage, which he onereo
II in evidence. He also. offered state
lment that there was no record or the
court that she had ever secured a d.
yorce. When he learned that the WON
an had another husband he left her
The last he heard of her she was III
San Francisco. Judge Speer made ar
order annulling the marriage. 81
In the case of Kate Sullivan agains
Charles Sullivan, the plaintiff testifes
{ that she was 25 years of age and hal
! lived in Montana for 10 years; me;
| were married at Philipsburg, Jan. "a
5 1890, and lived together until Feb.
1892. Mrs. Sullivan said she Away
| treated her husband well and Wit
l | kindness and affection, but that n
: treated her with extreme cruelty, an
e | sometimes inhumanly. He refused I
I nrovide me with the common necessa
3 ries of life," she said. land l had :
e | work out in order to obtain food an
e clothing for myself. On Feb. z, 1872
4 he struck at me with his fists with
4 out cause or provocation, and was pre-
e vented from beating me by ELI sag
e who was present and caught hold Q
e him until other assistance arrived a
: the same time he called me vile an
r indecent names. In August, 1880, N
$ falsely accused me of unchastity, an
: said 1 was running around with othe
: men. He knew IL was false.
( Gordon Sage of Philipsburg testifie
!; for Mrs. Sullivan. and said he kne'
i her and her husband, and that the la
= ter never supported her. The defent
! ant informed the witness that he al
t not intend TO live with his wife again
a The decree in the case restores Mr.
r, sullivan to her maiden name, Kat
I Schultz.
Annie Mckay in her suit again'
| Charles Mckay. testified before
L hot Qh
n defendant in Tuscarora. New, Jan.
J. 1883 She has lived in Butte for FOL
years.
e "Under what circumstances did yo
a last see your husband?" asked II
n referee.
a IT was living with my husband
" Tuscarora. and he became so drunkt
N and indolent that he did not provie
any support for me at all, and he ma
lv got up and left me entirely TO m
own resources. i remained tnere ar
made a living for myself the best
e could. and he left for Nova Scotia
{, have not seen him since. / then can
3 10 Montana. and / have been here evi
u since. 1 desire to be released ana r
II lieved from him or account OF his ha'
s ing deserted me-.
Is Mrs MCKAY said she did not kno
the present whereabouts of her hu
band, but thought his postoffice a
dress was Mount Thome. Pictou cou
n ty. Nova Scotia
u Watkin Bynum. father of Mrs. M
Kay, testified to the general WORTHLESS
ness of her husband. and said that s.
e had to work hard to support herself.
1t Mrs. l.. Tippel testified that she h
known Mrs. Mckay for is years. Al
knew that her reputation and chara
a ter for industry and chastity was =
lie right" and that she was GOOD
ne every way." while the husband was
| dr,,nken shfftless man..
A decree was ordered entered for Z
er plaintiff. ~.
Another decree of divorce was sign
in favor of Clementine- Common al
Ill against Stanfield Common. Mrs. Co
w nor Is 81 years of age. according
10 her testimony. and was married TO Z
We defendant in Nodaway county, NJ
n Aug. %, 1860. For eight years she h
T. resided in Butte. On June Z. 1889. I
We .-x--a.... Iaft Rllffa for Idahn Wi