The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-12-17
JURY MAKES ITS REPORT
Understood That Three Indict-
ments Have Been Returned.
DIVORCE CASES DECIDED
Judge Brantly Holds That Where a
Wife Is Not in Destitute Circum-
stances. Non-Support Is Not
Sufficient Cause


the district court for The present term.
The grand jury, which was appointed
last Monday. completed its labors yes
terday and made the following report:
ITO the Honorable Judge of the District
Court in and for Deer Lodge County
State of Montana:
I'VE, your grand jury impaneled on
the 18th day of December, 1897, respect
fully report that we have in \ general
way examined the various county offices
in the court house, and So far as I've
can observe in cursory examination.
we find the offices in good condition
and properly attended to. We visited
the county Jail and found that in some
respects the Jail needs improvement, but
we find that this condition will be rene
died by the proper authorities. We also
found that the court room had a stencil
in the same arising from the stable be-
meath, and we are informed that this
VIII be remedied by the proper authori-
ties.
I'VE have also examined into a num-
Der Of eases, on some of which we pre-
sent proper bills and in some cases we
found no bills. Having no knowledge
OF any further business we respectfully
ask to be discharged.
&C. G. BIRDSEYE3, Foreman
wv. J. MATTHEW'S, Clerk
! it is understood that three indictments
We're returned, but, of course the names
OF those who were indicted will not be
known until the sheriff $ officers have
placed them in custody
Two women, Mrs. Eliza beth j. Patter-
son and Mrs. Martha Reid. ran up
against it yesterday in a way that they
had not bargained for Some time ago
Mrs. Paterson sued her husband j. G.
Patterson, for divorce, alleging that the
defendant had failed to contribute to-
ward her support. In his decision of the
case Judge Brantly denies the appica-
ton for divorce on the ground that
where wife is earning her own living
She is not suffering for the actual neces-
stiles for her maintenance and for that
reason the failure of a husband to sup
port his wife is not sufficient ground for
divorce. 1T must be shown that the
wife is in destitute circumstances or is
dependent upon others for her support
Mrs. Reid did not seek divorce All
That she asked was that hey husband be
compelled to support her. In this case
the court decided as follows:
THE reason that the court has reached
the conclusion in this cause that the de-
fendant cannot be held to give up his
wife, the plaintiff. on separate mainten-
ance, is that it appears from the proof
that the plaintiff is not destitute She
has some money belonging to her de-
rived from policy of insurance upon
the life of her first husband She is not
living upon charity, nor has she suffered
any want at any time the defendant left
hef. Besides. the proof does not show
affirmatiNely the ability of the defend
ant to furnish such maintenance 1t
does not appear that he is strong
able-bodied man, and capable of earn
ing wages, and he has no tangible prop
efty which the court can by any order
compel him to devote to the support of
his wife. Even If the wife were desti-
fute, the court cannot compel the de-
PENDANT to work, and even If the court
should order him to do so. he would not
be compelled to remain within the iuris-
dlctlon of the court, so that the court
could compel him to give some part of
his wages to the support Of his wife
But, without discussing the facts of the
case further, and without expressing
any opinion as to the moralities of the
case, 1t does not come within the rules
authorizing the court to grant the relief
sought
The wife is neither destitute nor de-
pending upon charity. The defendant
is not shown to be able in the legal sense
to support her. These two facts. that is.
the fact of her restitution and the abil- |
lty OF the defendant to support her, must |
affirmatively appear from the proof"
In the case of Hyslop VS. Dowd an I
order for judgment for plaintiff was
made in accordance with the findings /
In the matter of Austin against Ehret /
ct al, the costs Of the suit We're taxed I
to the defendant.
In the case of John Joseph VS. John |
Fitzpatrick. an order of dismissal was
made and the costs taxed to the plaintiff. I
Court then adjourned until Jan. 5.