The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-02-15

land came on for hearing before Judge
Eiles yesterday, with Messrs. Shepard
& Stanford appearing for the plaintiff
and NIessrs. c. F. and F. c. Loofbou-
row for the defendant
The case is a very peculiar one, it APP
pearing that the defendant had OBJ
tanned what he thought was a legal di-
vorce on March S, 1856, by confession
in the state Of Colorado on the ground
of desertion, and thereafter married
another woman and has lived with her
as his wife ever since.
Mrs. Hoagland alleged in her COM
plant in this case that she and the de-
PENDANT intermarried at Buena Vista,
Colo, on July l. 1881, and that during
the year 1888 the defendant deserted
her without cause, and has neglected TO
supply her with the common necessa-
ries OF life, although he is amply able
10 support her. being worth 500 900. Mrs.
Hoaglanc asked that she be awarded
$4,000 or that the defendants property
be divided in such a way as to the
court may seem just and equitable, and
that she have the custody of their Is
year-old daughter Ollie.
DEFENDANTS ANSWER.
In his answer the defendant sets up
that he and the plaintiff intermarried
at Bueua Vista. Colo. on July l, 1881.
He denied that he deserted his wife
without sufficient cause. He admitted
that for more than five years he has
not provided Cor the plaintiff, but de-
MES that he is worth $4,000 or any sum
over $500, and denies that they CO.
habited until the latter part of 1888, or
Tor any period longer than one month
after the date Of marriage, July l, 1881,
and denies that the child, Ollie HOag-
land. born the latter part of 1883, is his
child
The defendant then alleges thai in
August. 1881, one month after the mar
rage, Mrs. Hoagland deserted and
abandoned him without just cause, and
that on March 5, 1856, after a fun hear
ing, he obtained a divorce from her,
and that by the decree all claim of the
plaintiff growing out OF their marriage
relation IS fully determined and dis
charged, and that the alleged cause of
action is barred by the statute of limi-
tations, and that the plaintiff has been
guilty Of laches in prosecuting her al
legged cause OF action, it being now 16
years since the alleged desertion of the
defendant by the plaintiff occurred. and
further that after the lapse of ten
years from the time h obtained the
decree OF divorce he contracted a sec
ollu nldIIldSt ana IS now the lawful
husband o. another woman; that the
piaintiff has for more than nine years
had knowledge Of the existence of the
decree Of divorce. and that the claim
now madesby plaintiff is Stale and IN
considerable and ought not to be
maintained by law.
Mrs. HCagland, on the other hand
contenGcd that the divorce was obtain
ed by fraud and that she had not been
served with a fbCrrcrl, 81,
says HoaGland knew at the time where
she was. and she had no knowledge Of
the divorce for long time after il was
granted.
THE PLAINTIFF TESTIFIES.
Mrs. Hoagland was the first witness
called, and testified substantially to the
statements set out in her complaint
She also said that in 1884 she went to
Durango, Colo, and started a suit for
maintenance.
After the suit was filed she met Hoag-
land on the street and, after talking
the matter over with him, they decided
to live togethe. again. which they did
for about a week. Then, Mrs. Hoagland
says. she learned of his divorce, and
upon his refusing to have that set aside
she left him. For some reason or other
the suit filed at Durango, was dismissed
and another suit of u similar nature
was started at Leadyille. This one was
also dismissed in 1883. on account. so
the witness said. of her attorney being
in collision with HoaSland. Then Mrs
Hoaglsnd commenced proceedings once
more al !-eadVille. this time for divorce
and alimony. but as Hoagland was re-
siding out OF the state she said her at
torneys advised her tha1 she could do
nothing.
a Mrs Campbell was called to the
= = 4
as to the fact Of the marriage and de-
sertion.
The dispositions Of several witnesses
were read. showing that Hoagland had
not supported the plaintiff for a long
time.
FOAGLAND'S STORY.
Frank Hoagland testified for the de-
Tense that he was married to the plain
tiff on July l, 1881. and that about a
month afterwards he found it necessary
on account Of business to remove from
Buena Vista to Dillon, Mont, and his
wife refused to accompany him. giving
as d reason that she would not go
further west than Colorado, that she
intended going TO Leadville for a while,
and from there back to q relative who
was said 20 be wealthy. Witness was
a blacksmith. and came to Salt Lake
from where he went to Park City and
engaged in mining for a while there.
and also in other camps in this state
He was now engaged in the second
hand business At l1G West Second South
street, this city.
Witness then moved around to va
rious places. and was residing in Silver
ton, Colo, when he applied for the di-
Yorce. He resided at Silverton for five
years. and then went to Durango. Colo.
Saw the plaintiff at Durango on the
streets quite frequently. but did not
cohabit with her. She started suit
against him at Durango for alimony
Her attorney came TO see the witness
about settling the case. and witness
told him he had q divorce, but would
pay SEQ to settle the matter, because
he preferred that the plaintiff should
have the money rather than the law
yers He heard no more about it, and
never paid anything.
Plaintiff started another suit against
witness at Leadville. which never came
to trial The summons and complaint
in that case was served on witness in
Salt Lake, in 1894.
Hoagland was under crOss-examina-
ton when court adjourned until this
morning.
Bucklen's Arnica Salve.
The Best Salve in the world for Cuts
Bruises. Sores, Ulcers. Salt Rheum