The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-02-09
WERE AIRED IN COURT
The Family Troubles of Edward
and Anna Westlake.
BOTH DESIRE A DIVORCE
Charges and Counter Charges OF Cruelty.
They Have Been Separated Twice
Before and Then Patched
1t Up

The family troubles of the Westlakes
were aired in Judge Clancy's court YES
tetday afternoon in the trial of suit
for divorce, in which Edward Westlake
is plaintiff and Anna Westlake de-
PENDANT, and the story will be resumed
this morning. Both parties want a
divorce, each accusing the other of
cruelty. They own five lots and sew
eral houses in the Leggat G. Foster ad-
diton, and also have some valuable
mining property, all of which stands
in the name of Mrs Westlake, and she
wants to keep it, while her husband,
claiming that it was through his eff
forts and chiefly with his money that
the property was acquired. wants to
have half of 1t. The trial had not pro-
ceeded far before it developed that the
parties had been divorced twice
before and then remarked. Before the
trial began the attorneys for the de-
Tense, G.. NJ. Parr and Robert Mcbride,
asked for continuance on the ground
of the sickness OF Mrs. Susanna Hun
ter, an important witness. They said
they wished to prove by her that West
lake told her that he had sued for a
Wv VI Ce pCldAsG HAI Noutu Ilol SSl dlOHS
with his wife, and that he had nothing
to do with the property, as it all be-
longed to his wife.
w. /. Lippincott, counsel for West
lake, admitted that Mrs. Hunter would
SO testify, and the trial was proceeded
with. The Jury empaneled was COM
posed of John Clapp, Charles H. James,
Thomas j. iKnucky, A. j. Wicks, Peter
McCabe, Michael Jennings, Dennis M.
Smith, George Dewey, w. K. Packer,
Dennis sullivan, Edward Ward and
john Oswald.
Westlake was the first witness and
testified that he had lived in Butte for
10 years and that he married the de-
PENDANT "the last time" on Sept. 20,
1887. He was asked as to the conduct
of the defendant toward him, and he
said her conduct had been unbearable.
1t was not bad during the first two
years, he said, but it then grew worse.
She got tired of him and told him to
get oit. She called him vile names and
said She would not live with him any
longer. He left and went to the Occur
d'Alene country, where he remained for
'sdMs months, and then returned home
and was met by his wife with open
arms, but she had a carving knife in
aer hand and attempted to kill him.
She cut him across the left side of his
face and told him that if he stayed
around the house she would kill him,
and she didn't like to have a dead man
around the house either. Westlake
said she called him a vile name that
is applicable only TO a fallen woman,
and the defendant attorneys objected
to the testimony, because calling such
names was not ground for divorce.
The court however, overruled the OBJ
lection. The witness was asked to ex-
plain why all their property stood in
the name of his wife, and he said that
for several years, directly after their
marriage n, they lived in the Occur
d'Alene county, where he earned
$4,000 by teaming contracts in II
months. His wife proposed that they
invest the money in Butte property
and he gave her money to come to this
city for the purpose of purchasing lots
and building houses. She bought the
property in the Leggat & Foster addi-
ton and built six houses on the lots.
He supposed, of course, that the prop
erty would be in the names of both, but
when he discovered the facts he found
that "the old man had been left out in
the cold,' and the property stood in his
Wifes name. The lots covered some
valuable mineral deposits and the prop
erty has been worked as the Westlake
mine, from which Mrs. Westlake made
several thousand dollars. The witness
u
his earnings to his wife until he broke
his knee, some time ago, since which
time he has been unable to do much
work.
On cross-eXamination Mr. Parr asked
Westlake if he had any money when he
the defendant.
Il might have had a hundred dollars
or two he said.
IF you had some money, why did you
allow your wife to buy you a suit of
clothes to get married imp asked Mr..
Parr.
You make a mistake" said West
lake. 1T was Frenchman she bought |
the suit for
WHO was the Frenchman?"
"A man named Genereaux."
West1ake was asked if it was not |
act that when he was cut in the face
re had a carving knife in his own
land, and that he told his wife that if |
She did not give him half of the prop
,rty he would bring suit for divorce
ind charge her with burning down their |
odging house He denied it,
He was asked how often he had been |
married to Mrs Westlake and he said |
lie had been married to her two times
md divorced as often. He said his wife |
got the first divorce before they had
,een married. They had lived /
ogether without having been married
ormally. Two judgment rolls We're in
reduced in evidence by which it was
hown that Mrs. Westlake secured
llvorce by default on the grounds of
ruelty in October, 1881. Seven days
alter they We're married again. In Sep
ember, 1884 she brought another suit
n the same ground and in October got
mother divorce by default. Westlake
as still on the stand when court ad-
burned for the day.