Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-10-05
DISTRACTED HOMES.
um, Domestic Worries Told in Court
Today.
moer MERRITT TIRED OF THEN.


,,u,t today boiore Judge Merritt
Wv y, .opllostlon OF the plaintiff TO
w. tho defendant from dispo'ing
o,his property In order TO evsae 'ns
80, q, Inc court. Tue frat prooeed'
80, the nling oi tho deionjanPs
"n,wer. IN which he denies any In
-, 4, convey or encumeHr his
s,onshy 90 NJ to render the eniores-
I'm, Of the COURTS order rs TO ALL
.,,oas and costs impOssiblv. lie
,a,,nss Ayss that he iniends to obey
,ss courts order, except 40 far as II is
-, ro,slble for him u do 50 beoau5e Of
Nj, asanciai inability. AZ to the con-
ysyancs Of property to hi, mother, he
az. n was 10 secure her for $4,000 ad-
.s,,ed 10 him some time ago, AMI
,.hioh IL became necessary for him to
,.,.v lie lut.her says that u the re-
,,fsIning ordsris issued u Will sofi-
on,lv e,nolloals his business afiairs,
.nd wlll cause o.asr paf,ies to whom
n.t, ,ndsb,ed 10 ins,i.ate proceedings
~, ,sseelosufo against aim which
a,s.,ui,e would 10 avoided. IL IL also
s,s,.d In the affidavit that on the np'
80 from tho c0urpe order TO-
iusluy an apppsl on tue alimony heat
inc. he will givs good anu
,nifieiont bond TO secure nil elaine
.valust him iu this ease.
In tho presentaiiun ~ the cato before
The eouft today, Mr. Vafian appeared
far tbe pIa'utifi Aud CDl. Ellie tor thv
deiendnnt. Both ft1n uhief psrtic6 -
ths sult were Ia court. Ailer batch
of naturallzations hal htsn disposed Of
aud some iOrmsl orders maze, tic
Kelsey case was called, anu Mt. Narihn
opsped by an Argument 10 favor OF his
srnlieaI5n for leave 10 file a supple.
mental complaint, which was objected
40 BIZ the ueieddant. In this com.
plalnt IL was set i0r.h tina.
tho defendant had conveyed 10 his
mother nineteen lots In salt Lake
Clty and other properly for 81, 900, ami
the plaintiff believed the purpose was
10 avoid the ogufps order. MI. Variau
insisted that tue fillng VI thia supple
mental complaint was matter OF
egAl hight.
Colonel Ellis, for the defendant, In.
sisted that rs an appeal from M order
q the court IN this case nad been given
notice Of, tho case was beyond the
IurIsliction OF this court, aud the COM
paint could not be admitted.
This court did moi take the pamo view
a. the attorney for the defendant.
This court had full Jurisdiction OF the
cier, aud NJ the supplemental COM
plant was In proper form II would be
Hdmltied.
MI. VArian then arose 10 make an
application Tor n continuance ON the
Greer 10 show cause, because new
issues were raised by the defend.
an, In his reply 10 the order. Colonel
Eilis repeatedly objected, but INA ly
NJ. Varlan was permitted to 20 on.
lie tsked that he be given few days
10 produce proof on tho subjects al
issnv. Mr. VAfian said no might also
have " make application for the i'm
mtdlate payment OF the officers, who
had served uapers Ia the case up TO the
lre,ent wilhuutpay.
Col. Ellis remarke that he did not
thilk the plsinlin was starving be.
cause the $40 alimony had not been
laid. lie then suggested, tn tone o
bitterness, that thu plaiutln's attorney
hal been able to proceed up TO tn,
pfofont with considerable cue
ceis In conducting his case
ca. Ellis argued that this transie
OF property was shown 10 DO legiti
mate, fhe service OF the order Ms Il
Alimony had not been made unit
after tAe conveyance complained Of
Col. Ellis thought, thelpropossd,pr oied
log was mlnslTOus remedy for thu
alleged Intention to eva1e the COURT
order. This deiendant's attorney then
read Mr.. KelsFy's answer TO the orde
10 show cause. IL was admitted tina
The defendant had over $4,000 worti
OF property, but II was said TO DO on
numbered TO its full value, and tho de
fendant was earning no money an,
was unable TO raise even the taxes.
Mr.. Varlan suggested that II the de
fendhnps attorney would take care Q
his olienps sincerity In this action, tn
counsel Tor plaintiff would answer 4
the court Tor his side. Then Mr.. Variai
noin,tt out that the attempt 10 apes
was clear indication VI the defend
ants Intention to Vvade the order q
court, THIS same intouti0n was fur
ther shown by the de;endanpA CLAIM
- ~ hhA W pay thN Ait
inony, and by his deciding property {
me- mother 10 pay q debt to her, whel
al Tue ssme lime he ignored his obi
gAlion TO his wife and child. Mi
Naflan was not prepared ~ accept til
sworn statement OF the defendan
wilhou, proof thereof He wante
only reasonable time to show TO thl
court that the Defendant intended
disobey the order, ana that was III
purpose OF this request Tor q cOntinu
Anoe until Tuesday. The remed
sought In this cate was not monstroul
as claimed, but was the usual pr,
Geluts In the courts OF this Territory
lt WAS necessary for the protection {
Tue plaintiff anu Of the court.
Judge Merritt ,aid no had hold lhI
lhe plaintiff had mads out n prim
iayie case, ana had awarded her I'll
mony anu meant to see that she got I
a lew days delay was necessary n
lhe Protection OF the plaintiffs righ'i
hnd the continuance wouli DO granto.
Saturday next was fixed rs ths daio
the hearing.
The next case brought up was thI
OF Agnes q. Sansom VS. Frederick
santOm, decree OF divorce beln
asked on the grounds Of drunkenne
anu failure 10 provide. Mrs. Sanso
iesllhtd that they were married
1879 Her husband was barber, II
year before the commencement
lhls divorce he had been under the IL
nuenoe Of liquor all the time. stint
thelr separation, about y year Ago, ri
unl HununFIaI haRa.If uaH ahAIA frl