Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-10-12
THE COURT WASBUSY
More Narllal Woes Aired in DiYOrce
Suits.
BURGLAR SENT 10 HE PEN.
$1,000 Ask d for Damage by the East
Joruan Canal at Draper
Other business.

The divorce element was brought
forward In the Third distfic. court to-
day, before Judge Merritt, by the call
ing Of the case of Katharine jacobs Va
Low Taylor Jnctbs. Mis-. Jacobs said
her husband was able 10 work, but
would not, AMI nal done nothing for
her support the pas, year. She had
contributed to her husbaud'e support
BY providing him with clothing. She
was tired oil this, AMI wanted 4 divorce.
Her testimony being corroboraied, tho
decree was granted.
Lswis T.. kelsey, the defendant In
the divorce case Of Sadie II. Kelsey vs.
J.. L. Kelsey, was brought Into court
this Ihofuiug ON n writ Of attachment
( Z refusing and Tegiecting 10 ray tho
slimouy ordcret bY October 10, alsD
upon the order 10 snow cause why he
SHOULD ot bn restrained nom dispOsing
Of his property, set for hearing today.
Colonel Ellis, Tor the defendant,
made a moiijn TO dismiss the iuIunc-
ton proceedings against Kelsey. Mr..
being heard on that proposition, as ho
was IA contempt AMI In court ON wit
OF attachment.
Judge Merfiit-I will bear the con-
tempt proceedings FIRST. IL this msn
has not complied with the order Of this
court 10 uay the money, L will know
thu reason why.
Colonel Ellis then moved that the
.aufatuUf tNuaaaHInua la Alst.ataa. .N
lie claimed that tue iil1avlt ON which
tho attachment was issued was in,ufil-
cicnt, Colonel Ellis said the proper
procedure was an orier TO show cause
why tue defendant should not DO pun
ishud for contempt, anu not M arrest
upon attachment, as had been done.
There was no showing that demsnd
had been maize on the defendant TO pay
the money, and the defendant would
not be IN contempt.
Mr.. Varlan made reply, pointing out
that the defendant bad admitted 10
having property, mud had never made
any contest uUon that point. when
the order Tor hllmoDy ana costs Of suit
was made, his attorney declared,
IN open court, that no would
bs ready 10 meet proceedings
for contempt. As 10 the point raised
that a demand should DO made, II was
not demand sought to DO enforced
here, but an order Of court, which was
complete In itself, and needed no de.
mand from q private person 10 be made
effective. Under the law this defendant
was In oonlempt, and the burden was
on him TO purge himself, 90 bear the
consequences. The question here was
whether this proceeding should be
quibblod all through this term Of court,
to enable the defendant TO avoid the
cOurt'e order.
Colonel Ellis replied, reiterating his
claim that facis sufficient TO deicribe
the contempt had not boen set forth.
Judge Merritt stated that the court
had made the order In tho hearing OF
lne attorney ana VI the dsiendant-
Colonel Elllt-Fho defendant was
not In court.
Judge Merritt-Hs knew, and tho
whole town know. IL he cannot pay,
he ia entitled 10 make u showing to
that eject, II he does not do 90, the
order OF commitment will issue.
Colonel Ellis then stated that for
many months the Defendant had not
had money to meet his liabilities, and
was now unable TO obey the order 70
pay slimony and costs Of suit. The
deiendant wanted time TO make this
showing.
Jude Merrltt-I gave the other sIde
q week, and l Will give you t1o same
time. Both OF these matters will DO
heard next Saturday.
The CASE OF Catherine Horseley Va
Glenn Horssley wa, In court again to.
dsy, on AN application 10 modify tho
former decree regarding the personal
property made at the time the divorce
was granted. There " n dispute be-
tween the parties Rs TO which owned
the household goods used by them
willis they wore husband aud wife. 1t
was asserted That sitter the defendant
had nortgagod his property anu
hypOthv Gated the household goods 10
faiie tho $500 alimony and Sll4 50
other costs, and had paid over tho full
amount, Two vans drove up TO the
Horteley house and took away the
household goods under the claim OF
Mrs. Horseley that It belonged to her.
The court said that the household
goods were community property, anu =
modification OF the decree could not
help the defendant. ut the old woman
got the start VI tue old ran with the
household goods, this court cannot help
~. she hai q right 10 handle the com-
mupi,y property" Ihs further ex.
PLANTATION was made on behalf OF Mrs.
horseley that she had taken only the
property which belonged TO her.
LasinA a. Heidel vs. Chelious w.
| X sidel was the next domestic quarrel
brought forward. The parties were
married In Missouri In 1873. The
wife charges that her husband has
| failed to provide for his family be-
cause OF his idleness aud dissolute
habits, and that over year ago no
deserted her. There are fiyo children.
The husband denies the failure to pro-
vide aud the deserIlon. s:rs. Heldel
testified that her husband had not
lived with her the past four years. Ho
| left her becAuse he wOali not support
the family. During the last year they
| lived together he had given the family
about Sg5. Three years ago, the sup
porl he gave was SIS for the year. Two
years ago 1, was $40. rhe next year
| he gave IS, anu suit to each OF the
boys, who bad worked tor II. She had
| supported herself aud family by her
own work aud by help from her rela-
tivts. He had not been n sober man
all tho time TOR many years. Ho often
came hons intoxicated. When n0ber
he was peaceful man, but not when
hs was drunk. She had pleaded
nth him to stop his drinking
haiti, ss that was the cause
A.. -. Il