The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-02-16
BREAKING OF PAIRS
Counting and Wedding Vows Forgot
ten in the Mad Rush.
ALL BENT ON SEPARATION
A Heavy Crist Of Divorce Matters
Ground Out in the Courts
Yesterday-A Variety Of
Ccmpla !nts.
ALL BENT ON SEPARATION

: The usual Saturday grist of divorcS
= matters was ground out in the court,
yesterday. Proofs were taken and 2
; decree ordered in favor of the plaintin
in the case Of Mary Gabse against
Frank Gabse. She testified that she
was married to the defendant in Butte
on June p, 1890. and that they have
one child, a girl five years old. In Sep
TENDER, 1894, he was convicted in the
district court OF the crime of grand lar
ceny and sentenced to one year in the
penltentiary. lie served his time and
was discharged hut she has not lived
with him since. Gabse and his brother
in-law, a man named Zachman robbed
Northern Pacific freight car. Mrs.
Gabse was awarded the custody of the
child.
Proofs were also taken in the case
of John Giiligan against Alice Gilligan.
! The plaintiff, who was represented by
! Attorney Jackson, testified that he was
! married to the defendant near St Louis
on Oct. IL. 1874. and they lived together
| until sept. % 1887. when she deserted
him at Aspen, Col He has been a resi-
! dent OF Butte seven years His wife.
I he said, had also been an habftual
/ drunkard for three years prior to the
! time Of the desertion. She was intoxi-
! Gated to such a degree that she neg
4 i''t''A Aiit Nil4luiti ana ntAf household
| duties. One evening he returned home
/ from work and found his two children
alone and his wife missing and he has
/ never seen her since and heard of her
nut once and that was about five
years ago, when he learned that she
was in some town in Illinois Did you
give her no cause to leave you" asked
the court. We'll, none that 1 know of
Judge Another witness testified that
Mrs. Gilligan deserted her husband and
ohiidien and that her drunkenness was
matter or common repute. A decree
Of divorce and the custody of the chill
dren were awarded the plaintiff.
The case of Mrs. Augusta Ward
against John Ward, n suit for divorce
ON the ground Of desertion, non-support
ana cruelty, came up before Judge
Speer on a demurrer ITO the answer
Attorney Nancey appeared for the
piaintiH and the defendant appeared
In person. The answer in the case set
up general denial and alleged that
me paints. was not a fit person to
nave the care aud custody of the chill
dfen and asked that they be awarded
10 the defendant and that the plaintiff
have nothing. Mr.. Yancey argued
briefly that the answer set up no de-
IefSe ana fhat II was Ambiguous and
indefinite. II have no argument to ad
vance In defense OF the answer" said
ward in reply to the attorney, "ey-
cept TO say that the complaint is as
ambiguous as the answer l can see
no ulnerence between them" The /
court took the matter under advise I
ment
The case OF Farraday against Far-r-o- |
cay which Is pending on a motion and |
demurrer, was continued for hearing |
uhti sdtulday, Feb. %. owing 10 the |
aosence or the plaintiffs attorney.
The hearing IN the O'Brlen divorce
case WAS cont
ing to the absence Of the PLAINTIFF. who
Is an inmate OF the woman's and chill
dren's home. 0'i'i-
The case of Charles Bergstrand
against sophia Bergstrand came IN he
Ioie Judge McHatton on the DEFEND
ant motion for alimony and counsel
Tees. The plaintiff was anxious ia dis
miss the suit but the defense Objected
because the wife was compellad to en-,
ploy counsel before the plaintiff mani
Iested any desire to withdraw his suit
l ne court made an order requiring the
oeiehuant 10 pay into court $50 as an
Zee for the defendant and 70
pay the costs of the proceedings so far
Upon the payment being made the case
will be dismissed.
In the case of John Lamuth against
barbara Lamuth the defendants mo-
non LOT ahmony was argued The
plaintin charged adultery and the de-
PENDANT filed a cross-compIaint cnarg-
ng cruelty and non-support. She aIleg-
"a IN an aHidaNit that she was Support-
ms the children and that the plaintiT |
vas earning 5000 a month as a miner. |
II couhtef-affidaVit Lamuth said that |
not long ago he decided to his wife soma |
property valued at 81 900 |
rom which she was deriving an income |
u 20 month. lie also said he had n !
house In Walkerville which was occu-
bed by his wife without expense, while
he was out of employment and deeply
n debt. He lost his last job because |
lis wife instigated two attachment
uits against him. His wages were gar
lisheed and he was discharged The |
curt took the matter under advise
nent.
Proofs were taken before Judge Nc
1atton i'm the case of Joseph Lavoi
Ealnst Louise Lavoi The plaintiff tes-
med they were married in Canada
m Aug. II, 1889, and lived together un-
u sept. IL Of last year, when she left
lin, while they were living i'm Butte.
nd went To live with one John Doe. In
loom Of the Monte Cristo block She
old her husband she had found a man |
he liked better. He met her on Main
treet about a month and a half ago
nd asked her to return 10 him. promis-
ng 10 forgive and forget, but she liked .
ohn Doe best. LaNOi never learned
ohm Does other name, but understood
hat his first name was Joseph The
air are At present at Trail Crpk II g
.aNoi said he called on his wife At the Z
lonte Cristo and found her with Doe. .
I suppose you made quite a fuss
rhen You found them together" said
Judge Mediation.
No; just opened the door and walk 4
q in" Z
And talked matters over?' )
Yes, we talked them over"
Very friendly"
Not very good" {
They told you they were living to- 4
ether"
Yes. sir"
And asked you to call again. sup
osc2"
No. they did not" 4