The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-23
GROUNDS OF DISCRETION
Alleged in Mary Sullivan's Suit
for Divorce.
BEFORE JUDGE LINDSAY
Husband Told Her to Go Home to Her
Mother-She Got Her Decree.
The Jury Dis
charged.

The long series of jury matters il
Judge Lindsay's department of the dis
| trict court came to an end yesterday
morning, and the jurors We're dis
| charged for the term.
The most interesting matter before
/ the court yesterday was the divorce
| suit of Mary Sullivan against Michael
| Sullivan. The suit was brought on the
grounds of desertion and failure to
provide, The defendant had defaulted,
and the proofs of the plaintiff We're
| heard The evidence of the plaintiff
and her mother showed that the de-
| PENDANT had found a home by his mar
riage with the plaintiff, and that when
! he lost the home he forsook the plaint-
| iff. He lived with the plaintiff five
| months after their marriage and dur
| ing four months of the five they dwelt
| at the home of the plaintiffs mother
In all this time Sullivan worked y
shifts At the end of the time Sulli-
van deserted the plaintiff, and he has
| contributed nothing to her support
| since.
| Mrs. Sullivan, who is q slender, girl
| ish looking young woman, testified that
| she has resided at Butte for u years
and married the defendant here in
| August, 1893
You allege that your husband de-
serted you. When did that occur?'
her attorney, Roy Alley asked,
Tn February, 1894 We We're mar
ried only five months, and he only
worked II shifts in all that time; and
| we lived with my father and mother
four months out of the five
| Did you give him any cause to de-
sert your"
mo; he came home one night and
told me to. go home to my mother
The plaintiff testified that the de-
PENDANT is an able-bodied man, and has
contributed nothing to her support
child, little girl of five. The mother
testified that the plaintiff has been
supporting herself.
HAS the defendant contributed any
thing to her support?"
| mot a cent"
That's all, your honor
1.-THE court will grant a decree of
| divorce and award the plaintiff the
child and give her permission to re-
sumo her maiden name" said Judge
Lindsay. The plaintiffs maiden name
was Mary Lynch.
The appealed case of Joseph Rice
| against F. Grefig was yesterday or
/ dered dismissed by Judge Lindsay be-
cause of Grefig's failure to appear and
prosecute mis- appeal. Judgment was
entered accordingly His attorney said
| he had notified Grefig of his intention
| to withdraw from the case, and asked
that a continuance be granted to Gre
| fig, but the court overruled it. The suit
was for an attorneys fee of SIS.
| In Judge Lindsay's court an order
| was entered vacating the order for
| trial in the case of Thomas Lavell
against Thomas Breen yesterday.
| In the case of E. Zolbes against
e. Gilmer, judgment for the plaintiff
| for $50 and costs, on the proofs and
| by default, was entered.
The fine of $40 against Juror William
]. Davis for absence, and the fine of
| S. against Juror Frank Gibbon for
| hardness were RENTED by Judge Lind
| say.
Charles Langlois, Samuel Ayotte and
George F. Marsh We're yesterday ap-
pointed appraisers in the estate of
Palmire Proulx, deceased by Judge
Lindsay.
John O'Rourke and John Eakins yes
| terday petitioned the district court to
grant them permission to sue ]. G..
Hammer, as receiver of Blakeley &
| Lowell, and Judge Lindsay signed an
order granting the permission. The
plaintiffs then filed their suit in the dis
trict court. They sued Hammer to re-
cover 100000 bricks or the value there
of, which they place at. $3.50 The
| complaint says that on Dec. 10, 1889
| the district court appointed Hammer
receiver OF all the property and effects
or Blakeley & LaVell. upon a petition
by Blakeley in an action brought by
him against Lavell. II further says
that the court had no jurisdiction to
make the order appointing Hammer
such receiver and that the purported
appointment does not constitute him
receiver in the action referred to for
the property named or at all and is null
and void. The plaintiffs claim to own
$40, 600 bricks at Blakeley & Lavell's
brickyard. and say they We're in pos
session Of them from the End to the
21st of December, 1899. They allege
that on Dec. u, 1899, while the plant
lifts We're in possession of the bricks
Hammer assuming to act as the re-
ce1Ver named, took possession of the
brick and has wrongfully and unlaw-
fully withheld the same ever since. The
bricks are worth $4,000. The plaintiffs
| pray that the bricks be restored to
them, or in case that cannot be done
that they be given the value of them
| and damages.
In the suit of Albert Weinberg
| against Frank w. Warnock to recover
| $744, the defendant filed his answer
in the district court yesterday. The
answer says that the defendant does
| not believe that Samuel Wolf, who
! originally owned the account sued on
assigned it to Weinberg, and that Wolf
| now exercises acts of ownerships over
the account and still owns it. 1t says
also that the defendant gave Wolf an
order for $744 worth of lumber on the
firm of Madden &, Brown at Tacoma
| Wash, which order was accepted as
| payment in full of the debt. Warnock
admits that he left Washington in 1891
and has lived in Montana ever since
| but denies that he left Washington to
| defraud his creditors, or particularly
the plaintiff, or that he fraudulently
| concealed himself in Montana, or that
| he passed under the assumed name of
Frank w. Warnock He says Frank
| W. Warnock is his true name. He adj
mits that he was doing business I'M
der the name Of w. w. Webb when
Wolf sold him the goods on account
| but saws Wolf knew his true nan1l