The herald., 1898-11-20
HUSBAND and FATHER
DAMAGE SUIT FOR ALIEN NATION
OF WIFE'S AFFECTIONS
|SHELEFT HOME BUT RETURNED
Judge Allen Holds That Damages
Only for Loss of Services While
Gone Were Sustained

The suit Of P, M. Loomis against his
father-in-law, George Rhinesmith, for $50Ol
damages for alienation of his wlfe's atfec
tions was on trial before Judge Allen yester
day.
The testimony adduced in behalf of tho
plaintiff was to the effect that plaintiff and
defendants daughter, Elizabeth Is. Rhine
smith, were married on June 20, 1893, al
Fort Wayne, Ind, and that they are still
husband and wife. In April, 1895, they re
moved to this county, where two children
were born, daughter, or years old, anc
a son year old.
While living at Sierra Madre, or Marcel
Both of this year, plaintiff alleged in MS com
plant that the defendant persuaded and en-
ticed his wife to take the children and &c
with defendant to some place then unknown
to him, and that since that time he has
been unable to find them. Rhinesmith j.
alleged to have entertained previously very
unfriendly and hostile feelings towards
plaintiff, and to have used all his influence
over Mrs. Loomis to induce her to desert
her husband, and she, being possessed Of
little selfwill and specially susceptible to
the influence of other persons, particularly
of her father, at last consented to leave him
since which time defendant had persistently
concealed her whereabouts from plaintiff.
Damages in the sum OF $4,000 were asked
for on account OF the breaking up of plain.
tiff's home and the mental and physical dis
tress suffered by him on account OF the loss
of the services, aid and society of his wife
and the comfort of his children.
In the answer to PLAINTIFF S complaint, Mr.
Rhinesmith made general denial of tho
allegations of plaintiff, and further answer
ing alleged that on or about April IA, 1898
Mrs. Loomis left her home with her children
and went to him for protection and support
being impelled thereto by reason OF her
husbands dissolute character and intemper
ate habits. 1t is set forth that for more
than a year previous to such desertion
Loomis had failed to provide the necessaries
of life for his wife and children, who were
supported by defendant and his sister, now
deceased.
Further allegation was made by the de.
fendant that on or about July llth last Mrs
Loomis had filed complaint against hel
husband, asking for divorce on the grounds
of his extreme cruelty, failure to provide
and habitual intemperance. Judgment was
asked that plaintiff take nothing on his
complaint and that defendant be allowed
his costs of defense.
At the trial yesterday the plaintiff, who is
rancher and expressman, took the stand in
his shrtsleeves and told the story of his
trouble. On cross examination he identified
as his slungshot and knife which defend
ant alleges Loomis had used to intimidate
his wife, but plaintiff denied ever having
SO threatened her, and professed to have
been a model husband, never having struck
or kicked his wife or otherwise ill-treateC
her. His manner was very belligerent, how
ever, and it was only by the strict order ot
the court that he could be held down o q
respectful style of delivering his testimony
He said that his wife had returned to him
last July, since which time they had lived
together with ordinary felicity.
Mrs. Loomis, who has switched to her
husbands side of the case, testified that her
father had asked her why she continued to
live with her husband, and had offered to
support her and her children if she would
leave him. Epithets hurled at her husband
BY her father were rehearsed by the witness
who wept copiously as she told of the i'll.
feeling between the two men.
1t being apparent to the court that nc
special damages could be recovered on ac
count OF alienation of the affections of Mrs
Loomis. she having returned to her hus
band, Judge Allen directed counsel for plain.
tiff to confine proof to the value of her ser
vices from March 30th last, when she left
home, to the time in July when she returned
that being the only issue left for adiudca
tion.
Testimony not being completed at noon
ard other causes being set for hearing mean
time, the case was continued for further
evidence to Dec. 18th at ppm.