The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-07
WHISKEY HIS CHOICE
The Story Of a Man Once Rich and
Highly Respected.
HIS WIFE SEEKS DIVORCE
Strumbaugh Says He Paid Clayton
for the Ranch and Owns the
property = Matters Set for
Hearing In To-Day's Court.

Emma F. Gallagher yesterday COM
menced an action In the district court
against her husband, Peter Gallagher
for divorce. The suit tells the story of
the wreck Of a man once well known,
rich and highly respected in Silver Bow
county. Not many years ago Gallag-
her, who Is the son-in-law of ]. ].
Feeley, was one of the richest ranchers
in this part of the state, but during the
past few years he has been going to
the dogs through drink, and his wife
says in her complaint that he has sue
ceeded in squandering his entire for
tune and possessions. She alleges that
they were married at Feeley's station
on Jan. IL, 1888. Besides squandering
his property he also treated his wife
with cruelty. On Aug. 10, 1891, while
they were living on their ranch three
miles from Melrose, he struck her on
the head with his first and choked her.
For the last few years he has been
guilty of habitual drunkenness and has
squandered all of his property and
money in drink and neglected his wife
and children and refused to support
them. The property squandered, says
Mrs Gallagher. consisted of 60 head of
horses, 500 head of range cattle, a 100
acre farm three miles south of Mel
rose and all the farming implements,
all valued at $4,000. For more than a
year he has failed to provide his wife
and family with the common necessa-
ries OF life because of his idleness,
profligacy and dissipation, and Mrs.
Gallagher says she had been compelled
to support herself and four children by
her own efforts. She asks the court to
award her the care of the children,
aged from to IL years, and that she
be restored to her maiden name of
Emma F. Feeley. George Haldorn is
her attorney.
William H. Strumbaugh yesterday
filed an answer to the suit recently
brought against him by Charles A.
Clayton to recover possession of a
ranch near Melrose which has been in
Strumbaugh's possession while Clayton
was in the penitentiary. Strumbaugh
denies that any of the property de-
scribed in the complaint belongs to
Clayton and alleges that he bought the
ranch with everything on II, including
Ill head of cattle on Oct. 10, 1887, for
$500, and paid the sum in full. Strum-
baugh also pleads the statue of limit
atoms.
The remitter in the text book case
accompanied with the full text of the
opinion was received from the supreme
court yesterday. The opinion covers
nine typewriter pages, the substance
of II having been published in the
Standard Tuesday morning. The opin-
ion directs the district court TO sustain
the defendants demurrer to the COM
plant.
The trial of the condemnation case of
the Northern Pacific against j. A. Muir
ray and others was concluded last eve
ming and the case submitted to the jury
with instructions to bring in a sealed
verdict.
The following matters are set for
hearing In the two departments of the
district court to-day:
Department /, o'clock d. m.-Call of
the trial calendar: Estate of Charles
Gillen, settlement of account and petit
ton for distribution; estate of David
b. Cow, return of sale of real estate:
estate of James e. Calderhead, petition
for letters of guardianship; estate of
Benjamin Armstrong, petition for let
tiers OF administration; estate of Oscar
Simons ct al, petition for letters of
guardianship; estate of John Wrath,
probate Of will; Thomas Ford VS.. j. H.
Saville, motion to dismiss; Benjamin f.
Jacobs VS.. Frank Boucher ct al, mo-
ton for leave to file supplemental an
swer; Silas F. King VS.. A. p. Heinze ct
al, order to show cause why injunction
should not be granted; ]. p. Hendricks
VS.. Edwin Bray ct al, motion to dis
solve restraining order.
Department II.-State VS.. H. Connel-
ly ct al, plea; state VS.. George F. Da-
Wis, same; state VS. Austin Byrd ct al,
demurrer; ]. Mcbride VS.. b. Z. Jacobs
ct al, demurrer; John Yank VS.. j. b.
Jackson, settlement of statement on
motion for new trial; ]. A. Murray VS..
E. Walker, petition for intervention;
c. Quinn VS.. b. Quinn. motion to retax
costs; II. L. Haupt VS.. City of Butte,
motion to dissolve Injunction; D. ].
Sullivan VS.. c. c. Lowney ct al, de-
murrer; Anaconda Mining company VS..
Butte & Boston company. demurrer