The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-30
ANACONDA NEWS.
WAS THERE A MARRIAGE?
Chief Contentious in the Lucas
Case Argued on q Motion.
POINTS IN COMMON LAW
What Constitutes Marriage Other Than
Statutory One3 - The Motion to
Strike Gillespie's Answer Taken
Under Amusement.

Judge Napton has under considera-
ton the matter of striking from the
files the answer of the sheepherder,
Richard William Gillespie. in the Luz
cas- case. The motion to strike was
argued before him at length yester-
day.
The action it will be remembered
by readers of the Standard, was
brought by Charles H. Lucas against
Lydia E. Lucas to have declared law
full their common law marriage. The
defendant demurred; her demurrer was
overruled. She was given 80 days to
answer, and failing to answer, default
was entered. After all this Richard
William Gillespie came into court, al
leging that he was the true and law
full husband of the defendant, and ask
ing that he be allowed to file his an
swer, which permission was granted.
1t appears that after Lucas and the
woman had lived together for five
years, Gillespie won her affections and
married her, but she subsequently left
him and is now living with her chill
dren, the product of her common law
union with Lucas
j. NJ. Simpson, attorney for Lucas,
filed motion to strike the answer of
Gillespie, alleging he has no standing
On the case, as he is not the woman's
true husband. This is the motion
which was argued yesterday, Gillespie
being represented by John T. Casey
Mr.. Simpson took the ground nrst
that Gillespie had failed to make an
swer within the 80 days allowed. and
thus has no standing in court. he
next argued that Gillespie does not
come before the court with clean
hands, having shown by his own affi
davit that he won the affections OF
the woman and caused her to abandon
the man she was living with as hus-
band. He further argued that the
mere living together and cohabiting OF
Mr.. and Mrs. Lucas, prior to her meet
ing with Gillespie. constituted mar
riage. He held that the doctrine OF
common law marriage is that the mere
living together of man and woman and
their holding themselves out to the
world as a married couple constitutes
bond of matrimony.
Yes" drily remarked Judge Nap
ton, that is the way negroes down
South used to get married"
Mr., Casey, in replying, argued that
the 80 days allowed for filing an an
swer were allowed to Mrs. Lucas, While
Gillespie has a right to come in with
his answer at any time. He attacked
the soundness of Mr.. Simpsons COM
mon law. marriage doctrine, saying
that the essence of common law mar
riage is mutual pledge taken in the
presence of witnesses, of priest or OF
a magistrate, and that no such pledge
is shown in this case He said had
Mr. Simpsons contention as to the
validity of the marriage been correct,
there would have been no need of the
action. Further he asserted that in
asmuch as there had been no marriage
between Mr. and Mrs. Lucas, she had
been free to contract marriage and
hence her marriage with Gillespie was
legal and still binding.
Judge Napton reserved his decision
on the motion, taking the matter un-
der advisement.
In the case the defendant was al
lowed to amend the complaint by the
elimination of the initial "E" in the
defendants name.