Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-08-03
MAN ACCUSES ANOTHER
Of Having Stolen His Wife in Canada
And Accompanying Her
to This City.

husband of the woman, charging them
with a misdemeanor, adultery, and given
a trial before Judge Nichols today. They
occupied quarters at the county Jail
during the night. The parties to the dis
graceful affair are Germans and came
from Lethbridge, Cam, only a few
months ago. During their early stay in
Butte they resided in a house at the real
of the Standard bakery, in the southern
part of the city, but moved from there
to a house out near the site of the West
Side road house. Mrs. Spriesch is not
handsome and is perhaps 40 years old.
Two children, boys, were in court with
her. Being young, however, they did not
seem to realize the gravity of the Of
Tense or nature of the predicament in
ant. Cornelius F. Kelly, chief deputy to
the county attorney, to whom the COM
p~lainant told his story yesterday, APP
peared for the state. Among the wit
nesses were two nice looking little girls,
aged IA and 16 years respectively, daugh-
tiers Of Mr.. and Mrs. Paul Bruning, who
also came from Lethbridge and knew the
parties to the action. Their testimony
showed that they knew more about the
alleged doings Of the accused people than
they should have known.
In relating his troubles to Mr.. Kelly
yesterday, Spriesch said he had come to
Butte ahead Of his wife, and sent money
for her to come. She came, and with her
was Balm. He was the first witness eX-
amined in behalf Of the state. He tes-
titled that he had lived in Lethbridge,
Can. He had known Balm there. In 1881
he had been united in marriage with his
wife in Buffalo. N. y, and since then
three children had been born to them.
Two months ago his wife had come to
Butte from Lethbridge. He had not
lived with her since his arrival, as she
and Balm were together. In answer to
a question as to how he knew his wife
and Balm had been living together, the
witness said she had admitted it to him.
He knew nothing Of the conduct of the
pair prior to their advent in Butte.
Paul Bruning, a carpenter, stated that
he had recently came to Butte from
Lethbridge. He had known the defend
ants in Canada, and when he came to
Butte he and his family lived with them
in a house at the rear of the Standard
bakery. Balm and Mrs. Spriesch, he
further said, lived there as man and
wife, occupying the same room. When
they were in Lethbridge they We're de-
it was different. When they left the
house at the rear Of the bakery witness
said he and his wife and children had
gone with them, but they could not get
along together and he and his family
moved back to the old house.
On cross-examination Bruning said the
reason the couple and himself could not
get along was because he had children
and they had children, and the young
sters did not seem to affiliate. His feel
ing, he said, was not one of hostility to-
wards Balm and Mrs. Spriesch. Asked
If he had not, the day before he left,
picked up a bar of iron, struck at the
he had and then explained how the play
came about. He owed them some none
and gave a note for it's payment, which
seemed to be satisfactory to them. When
he attempted to move his things away
Mrs. Spriesch endeavored to prevent him
from taking the sewing machine. He
told her she could not hold the machine
he would allow her to do SO he would
smash the machine. In his excitement
he had picked up the bar and struck at
the machine.
rs it not a fact that you, before leav-
ing Lethbridge, proposed to Mrs.
Spriesch that she elope with your asked
the attorney for the defense.
"Me!' exclaimed the witness.
The question met with an objection and
1t was withdrawn.
Some plain questions were asked the
witness, but he did not understand them.
''If somebody would ask them in Ger
man I would understand their meaning
he said.
Annie Bruning, a daughter of Paul
Bruning. testified that while the two
families were living together at the rear
of the bakery she had seen the Defend
ants occupying the same sleeping apart
ment, as it was her duty to prepare the
morning meal. She had known all the
parties in Canada, but knew nothing of
their doings there.
Mary Bruning gav similar testimony,
adding that in order to reach the kitchen
from her own apartments at their West
Side place of abode it was necessary for
her to pass through the room occupied
by the defendants.
Mary was the last witness present for
the state, but there were two others. a
man connected with the Kennedy Furni-
ture company and a woman living near
the Standard bakery, for whom sub
poenaes had been issued. They would
testify, said Mr.. Kelly, to material facts
in the case. Mr.. Furniture Man would
state that Balm introduced Mrs. Spriesch
as his wife, and the woman would testify
that Mrs. Spriesch had told her she and
her husband nae been divorced two
years. If the defendant would admit this
testimony the trial would be proceeded
with otherwise he woufd ask for a con-
%tinuance until the two witnesses could
be produced. The defense would not ad-
nit it and an argument on the c%ontinu-
ance proposition took place.
The attorney for the defendants main
tanned that a case had not been made
out by the state that on the testimony
adduced no court could even grant a di-
vorce. He considered it a disgrace and
a shame to have witnesses like the two
little girls testify in such. a case, and
Mr.. Kelly thought so, too. and added that