The Anaconda standard., 1895-12-15
BEFORE AND AFTER
Once They Were Happy, But Nov
They Want Divorces.
AN ExCUSABLE MISTAKE
Two Attorneys and the Judge Pug
zled for Awhile-One Girl Wife
Who Had q Husbapd One
Month ITO the Day."
AN ExCUsABLE MIST.

A number OF divorce cases were s0t tor
hearing before Judge Speer yesterday
morning, but when they were called up ].
L. Wines asked that the cases Of Harris
against Harris and Bennetts against Ben
netts be continued for one week, which
was ordered done.
A few minutes later w. l. Lippincott
came in with Mrs. Benefits, the plaintiff
in the last named case. and announced
that they were ready to present their
proofs.
The case has been continued until next
Saturday ON motion of Mr.. Wines" said
the court.
We'll, that was very kind in Mr..
Wines" said Mr.. Lippincott who looked
as II he thought some one had perpetra-
ted joke at his expense. "However. we
are ready to 60 on with the proofs In
this case"
Then the court looked puzzled. "Are
you one Of the attorneys in the case7"
he asked.
Certainly. represent the plaintiff and
there has been no appearance at all for
the defendant. The case went by de-
fault"
The court must have doubted somebody
and the clerk was instructed to look up
the proofs and see who appeared as at
torney in the case. The clerk found that
Mr.. Ltppincotts name was the only one
that appeared ON record. The court
thought 1t was very strange and sent the
bailin after Mr.. Wines. but the latter had
left the court house and Mr.. Lippincott
began to grow impatient.
Amy other attorney might have asked
a continuance In this case" he said, "but
a mistake of that kind should not be per-
mitted to tnJure the parties to the suit. ]
must say that Mr.. Wines generosity was
extreme. but this ds exclusively my case"
The court finally concluded to take Mr..
Lippincott's word for IT and the hearing
was proceeded with, and afterwards 1t
developed that there were two Bennetts
divorce cases on the docket. but that the
one on the calendar for hearing was ex-
clusively Mr.. Lippincott's case and that
Mr.. Wines had simply made a very ex-
cusable mistake. Mr.. Lippincott's client
was fradl, girlish-looking woman, barely
u years old. Her name. she said, was
Elizabeth Jane BENEFITS, and that she
was married to John Bennetts at her
mothers home in Centerville on Sept. %,
1884. They lived together just one month
and then he left her and has not since
spoken to her. although she has seen him
frequently. He packed up his things and
left me-" she said. He has been here
ever since. but have not lived with him
or spoken to him since he left me- /
don't know why he left me, as 1 never
gave him any cause or reason to leave
me. We had one or two quarrels, but all
on his account"
Mrs. Bennett, whose name lacks only
one letter of being the same as that of
her son-in-law, testified that her daugh-
ter, the plaintiff in the case, lived with
her husband Just one month to the very
day" and then he packed up his things
and left He is at present living in Walk
erville He was Jealous of his wife and
one evening he came home and accused
her OF having been out the previous night
when the facts were that she had not left
the house. The next morning he packed
up and left The only support he ever
gave his wife, according to her mothers
testimony, was to allowance her out"
which meant that he gave an order on
the grocery store to give her $50 worth of
stun for two months. Since he left her
his girl wife has been supporting herself
by hard work and the county pays her
house rent. A decree of divorce was
granted
Proofs were also taken in the case of
Charles N. Haentze against Clara e.
Haentze.' The testimony was that the
parties were married In PHILADELPHIA In
1886. and the defendant deserted her hus-
band on Dec. 1s. 1892. While he was at his
place of business she removed the fur
niture from the house and returned to
her mother and Is living with her now. A
divorce was granted.