Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-07-06
FAMILY QUARRELS.
A Chief Topic Of Interest In Bob
Branches Of The district Court.
MRS. PETERSEN GELS HER BABY.
Tho Slark'y tase-Wool Speculation
Roport-iWo Receivers Appointed
Long List Of Court Orders.


busy Saturday. Each one had fam.
lily quarrel to dispose Of bstween lili-
gants, and in each case the wife scored
n winning point. Then there was the
report OF Judge Hardness In the long
standing Territorial Wool association
casr,in which the COhn * Go. Interests
come out ahead. Two receivers were
appointed In small contests, aud shet-
~ Hatdy's iees were cut down more
thau n third In two other cases. De.
sides this there was a stt .loment Of tho
Park CITY contempt case, and then
came lot Of regular legal business.
BEFORE JUDGE MERRITT.
The first case Ia which testimony
was taken was that Of Emma l.. Peter.
zen Vi Andrew J. Petersen. The
couple we're married about two years
ago, but after living together
short time the dlitutbanccs
between thom caused n separation, the
wife going out to work for her own
living. In October, 1894. she gave
birth 10 BABY girl, and three weeks
thereafter was taken down with
typhoid fever. Her husband came
anu took their BABY, by consent, but
later refused "a telufn II. Tne pIOceeJ-
ing today was taken by the mother
to regain possession OF tue child. Sew
eral witnesses we're examined on each
side, DuI there was no contest as to
Mts. Petersen bping "a proper person TO
have custody 0i the baby, the father
/ merely insisting that sue had given up
nil eluim to n, which she denied.
On tue witness stand Mrs. Petersen
said her baby was taken from her when
II was five weeks OLD, ner husband
took II, promising that when sue TO-
! covered from typhoid lever 81 she could
! cato for II, she could have IL again. it
/ was IN Sewer county tho last tins sue
heard IRON H.. IL wRs now seven aad
/ "a half months old, Ga CrOss.eXAmina.
| ton she denied having said sne would
not rear II hut INTENDED ~ give IL
away. She was ~ tll tue latter part
| OF January. Before that she mad ak u
her hutbaud TO bring the child
back, but he Esii 1t was too
cold. On the l8Gh Of February
she went to see the baby, hut
was prevented from taking 10
away. Alter that tue baby was taken
to SEWER county. Her husband
threatened to kill her II shs Tried TO
secure the child. Then she went to
lawyer TO take steps to get the baby.
Dir. Frtotsen's state muul was that he
to.k tue child with the intention "
retaining II permanently. He ssys
his wife refused TO take care Of the
child. Two weeks before shs applied
for divorce the frat informed hlm
that she wanted IL. He had
never Threatened TO kill her The
child was Ia SEWER county, with his
sisters, at pTetent. He never hAa any
IDEA OF returning the obild. He cenied
being drunk when his wiie was ~.
Judge Merritt exprt seed his regret
at being called 20 often to deal vita
family quartels, and In tnis case OK
pressed the view that the husbands
conduct was not OF that manly oharac-
ter wife had right 10 expect when
she waB ~, He therefore ordered that
the BABY Le returned ~ It's mother
within ten days.
Tue case OF Henry WAGNER We An
drew J. Petersen Is what Is known as
this Park City contempt case. IL
was stated that the president aud SEQ.
rotary Of tho Sumnit Ice company
had failed TO respond TO the COURTS OF
der Ia an investigation Of creditors 10
| hHNfNNhll hAAN IAblNAAl W NhAAtW - .
Petersen-,h he same concerned iu the
, dispute about his baby. The secretary
Of the company explained that he b nj
been told by Mr.. Petersen that tho
hearing was not In progress, hence he
had failed TO appear. There being no IN
tentiOn OF contempt, the proceedings
were dismissed, with the remark that
! II the officers did not appear the court
would uss its power OF cOmpulslon.
Tue next important case was that Of
V. NJ. g. silva Vi. w. l.. Pic ard ot
. AL; anu an order was mads approving
the finiings OF fact anu conclusions OF
, law by Referee Hardness, and judg.
ment was entered In accordance
Herewith.
This /. tue case In which ths Terri
tOrial Wool association, which va
, composed Of II. Cohn & Co., v. NJ. a
Silva and W. l.. PiCkArd, lost u
, amount Of money In the wool bust
, In 1857, owing to investing too lArgtM
: Messfs. silva aud PlCkArd elaine.
, that The limit Of wool 10 be purchased
war placed al l 900, 900 pounds, but the
, 9th sra denied any knowledge OF such
, limit, The question hinged upon this
point, aud the referee fuds that while
, such limit may have been fixed as
, stated, the action WAS not brought 10
, the knowledge OF the other parties la
such way rs to be binding upon them
When the Investment was made,
|, i26,9il pOunda OF wool wtrs pur-
chased upon which there wan loss OF
o $40 cents per pound. In 1856 and
1857 COhu Il Go. invested $40 ,b35S0i
Mt. silva 33,OlG 2s; aud MIR. PicSaru
a $40, 2jlll, u total VI Sl5S, sOS7s. Upon
. settlement for the two years only
S27, SU4 ~ was found coming to tue
= firm, aud upon this there was dlss.
0 greement, pending the settlement Of
0 which the money was placed with f.
: II, AuoTDach at . Per cent interest the
= TeieTes now inds that Mr.. PickRri
! ahOuld receive VI that amount s329.bl
! and lnteTest, the balance TO 90 to Coun
u n Co.; at tho same time, to make the
whole matter even, Mr.. Silva has to
q nay to Mr.. Plcksru anu to Cohn 4 %.
IS, 533.Ol each, with Interest at per
. cent,
Orders were entered In the following
' csuses:
I Samantha Sullivan vs. Salt Lake
CITY; motion for new trial oveTruled.
Mary Il. Smith vs Salt Lake CITY
. motion for new trial overruled.