Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-09-30
SHE IS MRS. KELSEY.
Interesting and Important Ruling BY
Judge Merritt.
L. P. KELSEY 10 ray ALIxosY
Secret Marriage Sufficiently Corrobor.
alsd for tue Divorce Ease
10 Go On.

Third district court. Il Ia In favor Of
tho plaintiff, aud adiudge- that. Tor the
purpose OF alimony, costs OF suit and
attorneys e., !he fact Of msrfisgc has
been sufficiently established. there.
fore the o1ufi granted ths plain
tid's application. Col. Ellis, counsel
Tor defendant, gave notice Of an appeal,
and asked that a bond DO nxed by
which the sexual paymeaia could he
deferred tending the decision OF tho
higher cous,. This Judge Merritt de-
cllucd 10 do. but gave counsel oppof-
tuuuy TO ulakh q further showing thls
rttsffuon, when Col. Ellis and Mt
Vutiau wtlr GA 'sssd In an extensive
sfsumtn: Oh mjliyn for appeal 10 the
hupio1e oouit.
IN fundefiae bin decision In the case,
Jndge hiutfl.l said:
P,sindG b.lnga her action for a
divorce, uilssiug q marriage between
the iatu-s % salt Late CITY ON or
shout Do ohtg 10 h, 1855; tne birth ofa
con, LaWs MNmslasu Kelsey, now
us years Il Hg'j ifnor,i0n and isllur.
g. provide nl { 10 rAft Of the defendant.
a dea.lui tsitcmtut Of properly
claimed 70 belong 10 defendant Il given
IN the u1in niu1 coupled with the
all,gaiion u ni earning capacity Of
5000 Iet nnnum. The answer dc.
nlrH tnu marriage aud dcserliOn and all
responsibility 10 provide ior plaintiff or
| child, that the child IL tue issue Of any
legal marriage; that the property men.
toned IA tbs complaint " wholly
owned by defendant, and specifically
details his ownership In whole or In
pert, with explanatory statements Of
| incumbrancei aud outstanding debts.
/ lt admits an earning capacity Of $4,000
per Annum; that plaintiff nquiies SIS
II onihly iof support OF self and child,
as no'oie stated; denies any liability Of
defendant 10 phy the same.
Plaintiff alleges Ia her complaint,
that pending this suit, ahe needs sTo
TOR month ~ alimony pendente lite,
$3.50 temporary suit money, and $500
as counsel fees.
This hearing Ia had upon plaintiffs
motion Tor temporary anniony, suit
money and counsel fees, alleged 10 be
necessary TO enable plaintiff 20 prepare
Tor trial.
The only question NJ TO which thers
was any controversy between the
parties was that relating to the fact OF
marriage, alleged and denied under
oath IN the pleaiings, and contested IN
the evidence and argument Nsces-
sirlly involved In the decision Of this
question, IL tho construction OF our
statute regulating marriage.
In considering this question in the
light OF the evidence, II must be re-
me mt cred that the court 10 not now
called upon 10 pass finally upon the
rights Of the parties. It's only neces-
sary that shall he reasonably satisfied
Of the good faith Of tho plaintiff In
asserting and maintaining the fact OF
marrisge, and that, from the evidence
submitted there IL u fair presumption
Of PLAINTIFF teing abs finally TO o..
tabllsh the fact. am not prepared TO
admit, even, that upon this hearing
she must establish tue fact Of q legal
marriage by propondsrance OF ths
evidence. This Is ali shs VIII bs re.
quiTed to DO upon the nnsl trial and II
dsts no; seem reasonable that thu
ssnis mCasulo Of truth should be re.
qulTed upon this introductory hearing
1. "a tho policy Of tho law TO aid III,
a wife who Ia patty TO suit for d.
: yOrns, with alimOny and suit money
bsnj, n the wiie's necessities roquir,
|, it, 10 onAbls her TO present her side o.
y ths rs.o rs well and fairly ~ the hus
y band presents his. Where the fact O
the marriage Itself IL put directly In
usue, the possible osnssqusuoss ~ ~,
woman hro ceriHisly rs serious q
those eII oetGn, upon charge Of sdui
terry, whsie In addition tO tho effsc
UPON tho status tni reputation c
the woman, OF a nniing oil
no marriage, - sddsd In
consequences OF illsgilimaoy Of child
as Ia this case, II SCENE To me, tn,
woman sbould be held only Ia pTie3i
I facie praof, from which lair anI
: rtalOnAblp presumption that abe vii
eventually prevail will bs deducsd
And this Ia the rule az 4 undsFslsnl
Il. of tho decided casss. Ia Brinkll
J va Brlnkly $50 n. Y. 1874 ct seq Jus
a tico F0lgor says,
! at may DO said too that for tn
Z purposes Tor an application tot tenn
D sorary allmony, there will rot nee
;. that the fact u the marriage DO q
}. conclusiveiy established a. for the pur
= pose OF permanent nlimony OF nnJ
= other ultimate purpose OF toe action
b IL IL for the Interest OF society and II
Z aid OF publo policy that wnefe the
MARRIAGE relation has been IL act NJ
sumei, ~ should net easily ana ca.
a pticlously laid aside; and where IL "a
{ svsrred by the putative wiiu, and
4 denied by ,hs alleged husband, ~ sh'
i make reasonably PLATA case OF Ito OK
n istence, she should DO furnished will
+. mean. Of temporary support and o
= conducting the suit until tbs truth Of
A fnlsehood ~ her allegations can be W.
al csrtaln0l by the proofs formally taken
Z IN tue case"
1 And againi
o "rhe question now before us, how
q ever, u no, whether upon the proofs al
-. shown by tha pattiesa hnsl judgment
n should b. rendered, tina, there has oesr
y an actual valid marriage between tn
1 p,flies. Thv question now IL, 90 tn
proofs OF the parties GIVE resson 10 az
i pruhend that upon a trial Ut The iesue
n notWeen them there IL tbs fair prob
h bllity that tho plaintiff will malnIaii
. her allegations. This question is 90 b
B, determined for the purpose OF this ap
! plinatlon. This IL one In which th'
8 lublIc Ia Interested as well Ms the par
Z iief. IL there has been a blind
Q Ing couttac, Of marriage, II 10 o
public no we'll Us private Inter
: sst that II be- shown and msintained
IL 10 evident from whAi IL before VI