The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-03-21
BEFORE JUDGE LINDSAY
An Important Case Involving an
Interest in $4,000.
THE Herring DIVORCE SUIT
An Answer and Cross Complaint Filed
by the Dssendant-He Says His Wife
Is Addicted to the Habits of
Drinking and Gambling.

An important case involving an
eighth interest In 100000 was on trial
before a jury in Judge Lindsay's court
yesterday, and will be resumed this
morning. The plaintiffs in the suit are
Ruth r. Leggat and other heirs of AL
exander J. Leggat, deceased, and the
defendants are the Butte City Water
company. Rod D. Icsgat and J. A.
Coram In 1896 r. D, Leggat sold to
the Butte Water company the High
land placer mining claim, located
out in the Highlands and received, it is
understood, 100000 for it. The sale was
made through ]. A. Coram and subse-
Guently Ruth f. Leggat brought suit
against three parties for an eighth in
terest in the property claiming that it
belonged to A. j. LeGgat, having been
located for him and in his name by r.
d. Leggat in 1888 r. D. Leggat, who is
the principal defendant in the suit,
claims that he located the Highland in
the name of his brother only for con-
venience, and that really he had no in
terest in the ground at all. In his an
swer he said A. j. LegEat was his
brother and trusted friend.' to which
Attorney Scanlon filed a reply for Mrs.
Leggat. admitting that \. J. Leggat
was the brother of d. d. Leggat, but
denying that he WAS his trusted
friend" but that on the contrary he
was his trusting friend" r. D. Leg
gat claims that he not only used his
brothers name for convenience only in
making the location in 1852, but that the
location was subsequently abandoned
and relocated by himself in 1894 as pia-
Ger No. A3. 1t was also pleaded by the
defense that the location had been for
feited because no work had been done
on the placer from 1885 to 1894, and the
plaintiffs pleaded that if the work had
not been done by r. D. Lcggat it should
have been, as he was the administrator
of the estate of A. J. Leggat during the
greater part of that time. The trial
will probably be concluded to-day.
Philip Herring, defendant in the suit
| for divorce brought against him by Lee
| ma e. Herring, and which resulted in
| the kidnapping for which Herring was
arrested, filed an answer and cross
| complaint in the district court yester-
| day. Herring admits their marriage in
| Portland on July 10, 1886. and that dur
| ing a portion of their married life they
were engaged in the theatrical business
but denies that he ever persuaded hel
| or compelled her to continue such oc-
| cupation. but on the contrary has al.
| ways urged her to abandon the business
| and live quietly with him on his ranch
where their child could be properl!
| reared and cared for, away from the in
| tluences of a theatr life. After {
number of admissions and denals rela
| tive to their property, Herring denies il
his answer that he ever treated his wifi
| cruelty or that he ever struck or choke.
! her. or drove her and the child away
4 from home. He alleges that the child L
contented with his present home on thu
ranch and prefers to live with his faith
| er. Herring says that for the past 81,
months his wife has been and now il
| addicted to the habit of gambling ant
drinking and associating and consortin}
with 1ewd and disorderly people, and b,
| reason of her occupation, being a per
| former in a variety theater, and be
cause of her habits and associations
she is not fit or proper person to hav
the custody of the child. He says tina
on the other hand he is a sober an,
| Industrious man and able to care an,
provide for the child properly. He al
| leges that he expended all the money h