Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-09-23

Augustin Dugay. who had a divorce suit
filed against him a few days ago by his
wife, Emma. filed his answer and cross
complaint Yesterday, in which he charges
her with infidelity.
In his answer he admits they We're mar
ried at New Richmond, Wis, January II,
1885, and that to their union five children
have been born. He claims in his answer
that he has at all times been a dutiful,
provident husband and father, and posi-
lively denies he has been guilty of habitual
drunkenness, or that he has drank to ex-
cess. He denies being guilty of cruel and
nhuman treatment, and further states he
never has been guilty of doing the said
complainant bodily injury, or that he has
ever at any time published charges of her
unchastity. AT this time. however, as an
affirmative defense and c~ross-complaint,
he alleges that his wife became criminally
r. E. Dennie, and that since that date the
two have repeatedly been guilty of similar
offenses.
He alleges that on September 3, 1899, the
plaintiff left his home, taking the young
est child with her and left the other four
unprovided for. He further claims that on
he found the plaintiff had returned and
locked the doors and refused to give him
admittance. He alleges that he left the
premises. but returned shortly and found
his clothing and wearing apparel had been
thrown on the ground. He says that al
though he is a carpenter by trade and ca
been employed as a cook and receiving a
compensation of $50 per month, which was
used in maintaining his wife and children.
but owing to her infdelity he asks for a
divorce and the care and custody of the
children.
The defendants in the case of Libbie New
berry VS.. 81. McRae ct al. have filed a mo-
! ton to dissolve the restraining order, said
motion being accompanied by an affidavit
from Frank 7: Newberry; the husband of
the piano with his own funds, and alleges
he paid the sum Of $3.50 for the same. Later
on, however, his wife was in San Francisco
and sent to him for $l25. This he states he
sent her by authorizing his two sisters to
secure a loan upon the piano, which they
did, and sent the above amount by tele,
graph. Affiant says he has since separated
! from his wife and that she never has paid
him the amount sent her.
In the case of William F.. McAllister VS..
Frank Ratenlan ct al, wherein the plain
tiff received a judgment against defend
ants on September 16, 1897, the release OF
said judgment was today filed with the
clerk. The release shows q consideration
of $50.
Victor Erfurt filed an application for a
day. He alleges he is unlawfully impris>
oned and detained. and that said 1udg-
ment and sentence which was pronounced
formity with Section 27o7 of the Penal Code
of the state. His APPLICATION will, there's
fore. be heard before Judge Clancy this
afternoon at 4 O'Clock.
The New York Life Insurance ompan
filed its answer ioday to the complaint OF
Llewellyn S. Hatch. 1t admits being a
corporation organized under the laws of
the state OF New York. and that 1t has
been, and is now engaged in writing insur-
ance throughout the United States, in
Guiding the states of Colorado and Mon
tana. The company denies that the plain
tiff ever performed services for the value
of 81, 553. 80, or any other value or services,
or at all. except those services herein
after referred to and alleged. They deny
ever paying to the plaintiff $79S, mentioned
in the complaint, or any portion Of said