The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-11-30

ued at $500, with an incumbrance on
1t Of $1,000. That would amount to only
$1,000, and the title of this property is
in the Deseret Savings bank. The court
allowed her cart. horse and harness,
and the household furniture, the value
OF which the supreme court is unable
TO Tx. Second hand furniture is worth
much less than new. The entire ALI
mony allowed defendant is probably
less than $4,000 when she should have
been allowed $4,666, on the basis of a
gross sum, or S400 per annum on the
basis of plaintiffs income.
The court holds that the S249 per an
mum, allowed by the court for the sup
port, nurture and education of the IN
FAINT son cannot be regarded as ali
mony for the benefit of the defendant.
It is the duty of the plaintiff to pay
for the support and education of the
child, but in the event the infant elects
to live with his mother after he is Il
years of age, then the father should
continue, although the decree does not
require the plaintiff to pay for such
support and education after the son
is Il.
1--WE are of the opinion that the court
erred in its allowance of alimony to
the defendant. The court should have
required the plaintiff to pay defendant
$500 in addition to the homestead, the
L, lG.,
given her by the decree"
The defendant assigns as error so
much of the findings and decree as pre-
vents her from taking the boy beyond
the limits of the state. The supreme
court says in view of the fact that de-
PENDANTS parents live in Iowa, where
she lived until recently, her interests
and the interests of the child might de-
mapd return to them, even though
thew nf
Utah.
MAY HAVE THE CHILD.
The court holds that the findings
which forbids her taking the boy be-
yond the limits of the state are errone-
Gus. 1t then concludes:
I'VE are also of the opinion that so
much of the findings and decree assign
ed as error as authorizes the plaintiff
to take defendants son, whose custody
was given her by the decree, without
her consent, away from her home, and
where he may choose, so he return him
during the day, and as allows plain
tiff, without her consent, to take the
child out of her presence and associate
and converse with him out of her hear
ing was erroneous, in view OF the fact
that plaintiff had charged her falsely,
as appears from the record and evil
dence, with habitual drunkenness and
Win visiting opium denS, and OF the
fact that on the day the case was set
for trial he filed an amended complaint
charging her falsely with the crime of
adultery with different men, and in
view of the evidence that plaintiff at
one time placed the child in the Gus
tody of an agent, who knocked her
down and otherwise maltreated her
when she attempted to regain custody
of him, and in view of plaintiffs deser-
ton of his wife and child. and his aSso-
citation with women of bad repute, and
of his adulterous relations with one of
them, as we have found, and of the
fact that when she implored him to re-
turn to his family he refused to do so,
and abused her and applied opprobrious
language to her. The court might au-
thorize the plaintiff, in an orderly man
ner, to visit and converse with his son
at reasonable intervals and at proper
times, we have no doubt.
I'VE find no further error in this rec
ord. The cause is remanded with costs,
against plaintiff, and the court below
is directed to change its findings, con-
clusions of law and decree, SO it shall
conform to this opinion