The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1897-12-10
THE BONDS
W ERE SEVERED
The Ties Of MatrimOny Existing Between
Henry Parry and Alma Parry Were
/. Cut in Twain.
The Opinion Of Judge Smith Given in
Full as to the CONCLUSIONS Of
Law in the Case.
HAVE A NEW SERIES
Building and Loan Association Started a
Building and Loan Association Started a
New Series at Their Annual Meet
ing Monday Night.
THE PARRY DIVORCE CASE.
1t Was Called Saturday IN an Adjourned
Term of Court

Term of Court
Saturday began the divorce suit
of Henry parry vs. Alma p Prry the
case having been con,inus.u over from
the November term uu account OF Mrs.
Parry's illness. j. l.. Hannett APP
peared for Mr.. Parry and w. FL. Hell
wig for Mrs. Parry When Judge
Smith appeared on the bench Mrs.
Parry was absent, due, as her attorney
stated, tn SICKNESS, However, the case
proce,.l, d and testimony WIS taken in
her absense Mr. Parry was first called
and gave testimony much the same as
| was stated in the complaint, which was
to the effect that his wife deserted him
on or about Nov. 3. 1895. In his exam
ination Attorney Hannett brought out
/ every circumstances in reference TO her
de-ertion. la the cross-eXamination
Mr. Helwig endeavored to introduce
other causes leading up othe estrange-
ment between the part1es, but 1T was
ruled out by the court. One other
witness, Mr. Atkinson, was called by
Attorney Hannett, and whose evidence
was mainly in reference to the depart
ure of NJ rs. Parry from the home, and
at this point he rested the case. Mr..
Relwig called DR.. A. FL Daniels, who
stated he reduced the fracture OF two
ribs in the spring or summer OF 1893,
Mrs. Parry saying at the time the frac-
ture was due to the result OF a blow, but
by whom was not brought out. Mrs.
/ A. H. Daniels was called and gave evil
/ dence in behalf OF Mrs. Parry, but
sitnmered down her personal knowledge
of the differences and difficulties in the
family was limited, as it appeared in
court. Albert Stevens was the last
! witness just before noon. He bad
worked for Mr.. Parry four months in
1896, but knew nothing of their family
i d. .fficulties, although he saw her at the
farm several times and everything was
tn her answer to the complaint Mrs.
4 Parry alleged that about Nov. 26, 1886,
Mr.. Parry struck her and then threat
ened to take his life and prepared
papers to make final disposition Of his
BODY after death. She further alleges
that he went to the old country in
October, 1887, and she was compelled to
borrow money to support him iu idle.
ness She also alleges he knocked her
down and broke two ribs. She alleges
she has offered to return to his home
several times but he refused to agree te
it.
When court convened in the after
noon it was at the home of Mrs. Parry
on west Fourth street, where sher- eyi
dence was taken and which was much
on the same line as stated above.
At the conclusion of Mrs. Parry
testimony the court officers and at
torneys returned to the court house
Mr.. Parry was recalled and admitted
striking his wife under provoc atioI
3 f = :
and testified to her continually naggin,
and tormenting him. Mrs. Duncan
and two children, testified to Mrs
Parry's refusal to return to her bus
bands house. The case was submitte
to the court at 4::45 this afternoon with
out argument Judge Smith brief
said that the testimony showed ths
Mrs. Parry was forced to leave he
home by reason of the treatment sh
received and did not believe he We
entitled to the bill. He asked NJ
Rslwig to amend Mrs. Parry's con
plant and the divorce would be granite
to her. The action was consummate
and Mrs. Parry was given the decree.