The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-25
HUDELS0N ASKS
HEAVY DAMAGES
Beginning of His Alleged
Wife's Suit for Fees
and Alimony.
Attorney Tricks Objection to
an Amendment Sus.
tanned.
Dispositions in Evidence Alleging That
Cora Webster Was Known as
Mrs Hude son.
OAKLAND OFFICE SAN FRANCISCO CALL,

sos broadway, May "a.
The suit OF Cora Webster, otherwise
known as Mile Hudelson, against Rev.
B. F. Hudelson, former State president of
the American Protective Association, for
maintenance came up before Judge Els
worth to-day. The defendants attorney,
William Jordan, asked to be allowed to
amend the answer to the complaint so
that counter claim for $50, 600 damages
for defamation of character could be in
serted.
The amendm emit states that in August,
1889, B. F. Hudelson married Ida Woo d.
ford in Modesto and that he has been liv-
ing happily with her ever since and that
three children have been born to them.
1t also shows that the defendant has been
a regularly ordained Baptist minister for
many years. The propo sed amendment
concludes: "The bringing OF this action
by the plaintiff has caused the def endant
great mental anguish, and the harges
have been heralded all throughout the
United States, ridiculing, maligning and
defaming him, wherefore he asks for re-
lief in the sum of $50 600.
Attorney A. l.. Prick at once objected to
the amendment, and Attorney Jordan
then stated that this was not com plant
for divorce, but suit for maintenance.
An argument followed and Attorney
Frick said: "This complaint alleges
marriage and failure to provide
and the answer denies all the charges,
and now the defendant see ks to incorpor-
ate an action for damages in the answer.
whic is contrary to precedent. If any
thing, the amendment would ss cross
complaint and cannot be joined 20 the
answer in case of this kind. Suce an
amendment has no proper place in the
pleading of this suit, and what the motive
is that prompts it l don't know"
Judge Ellsworth reviewed the case
briefly and stated that such a claim as
made by Hudelson could not be incorpor-
ated in his answer, as it was not counter
claim. The court then denied the de-
PENDANTS motion.
Attorney Jordan then asked for speedy
trial. He said he did not believe that it
would take more than one day to try the
case, and that not more than a few
minutes oral testimony would be re-
quired. Judge Prick wanted a delay until
he had consulted with his associate, Reel
Terry. but Judge Ellsworth set the mat
ter down for hearing June9.
The complaint states that Hudelson
married Cora Webster in 1885, and that
they have been ever since husband and
wife; also that Hudelson deserted her in
1886, and that he has monthly income
OF $3.50, of which the plaintiff thinks that
Sl25 month is a reasonable allowance.
Judgment is also asked for $500 for counsel
fees.
In answer Hudelson denies that he was
ever married to the plaintiff or that they
were ever man and wife, or That he ever
deserted her. He also asserts that in 1854
and for four years afterward the plaintiff
was notorious woman publicly Keeping
a disreputable house in Modesto and else
where, and that this suit has been brought
solely for the purpose OF levying black
mail upon him and traducing and be-
smirching his character.
The answer also states that the woman
has been married several times and that
at the time of the alleged marriage to de-
fendant the plaintiff was a married
woman.
Several dispositions are filed with papers
from people who assert that they have
known Hudelson for several years. Mrs.
Annie Medley deposes that on several oc-