The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-27
I'm NOT GUILTY
Continued from Page Three.)


and wife constantly since then, until
he went to the war a year ago last
May. After his return he had been
served with divorce papers. At TINS
time his wife was working IN the
Flood house. The 4th OF. the present
| month she had told him she was mar
| ried to O'Toole and that they were
living together in the Furst block. she
| further told him that they mad heen
| married by Father Callahan IN Butts.
| Witness afterward wrote to rather
| Callahan and received q denial of the
wouan's statement. He also wrote to
| the clerk of the district court OF Sill
| yer Bow county and was assured that
| no license to wed had been Issued 70
Mrs. Reilly and O'Toole. Mr.. Reliy
| was not cross-examIned.
| A Mrs. Vivier testified that Mrs. he1l-
ly had visited at her home and told her
she was married to O'Toole. RMS was
| about two weeks ago. Night Chef OF
| Police O'Brien and officer Powers tes,
| tilted to their finding Mrs. Reilly and
! O'Toole together in room In the
| Furst block on the night Of December
| 22 and to arrestng them. John Pow
err, q railroad man, testified that he
had known O'Toole 20 years and MRS,
Reilly about two months. O'Toole told
| him be was married to Edna Lewis;
! meaning Mrs. Reilly, and he introduced
her to the witness as his wife about
one month ago in the Furst block. Wit
ness had seen them together.
Concerning a Divorce.
At this point the prosecution rested
and the defense moved for dismissal
OF the case on the grounds that MRS.
Reilly had obtained her decree OF d.
vorce November s, and the only test1-
mony adduced went to show that she
and O'Toole had cobabited on the 22d
of December; that at that time neither
OF the parties was married. and that
therefore they could not have com
mitted the offepse charged.
| In reply the prosecution quoted the
statute Furnishing unlawful cohahita-
ton by fine of not more than sou or
by Imprisonment in the county jail for
not more than six months. or by both,
and argued that the evidence proved
that the defendants had lived openly
and VIGOROUSLY as man and wife Wheh
they were unmarried to each other.
The divorced husband was recalled
to the stand and asked by the prosecu-
ton under what name his wife had
applied for and obtained her decree OF
divorce Under the name of Edna
Reilly" the witness replied.
"Was that her right manner"
at was not"
was your name given correctly in
the divorce papers"
Nc, wrong initial WAS n-enxed.'
This was the cpering OF the presecu-
| tlCn TGnl TO eSt3pHs0 Inc cSHtthtioii
that as matter Of fact Mrs. Reilly
never was divorced from her husband
because the decree was obtained under
: assumed names and consequently was
; not legally coed. TIE defense. after a
naggins argument. was allowed to pro-
duce the divorce decree as proof that
1t had been granted and was good, tbs
court cheerfully agreeing to take the
document Of the district court as pri-
mary evidence. Attorney Sawyer, who
acted in the suit for Mrs. Reilly, was
brought into court on a subpoena and
produced the DISPUTED decree. By this
; | time County Attorney Duffy had taken
.. up the tangled strings OF contention
ard was steering the case for TIE state.
l HAS that paper been fled with the
: clerk Of the district court?' he asked
sharply, as the decree was handed to
the fudge.
No" rerlied SAWYER at has not"
"'s'what I thought" said Mr.. Duffy:
"the clorl.s fees were never paid, and
the clerk refused to file. I object TO the
Introduction OF that paper as evidence
in this case, but am Obliged to YOU
D for bringing it into court. Never hav-
s. ing been fled. it is MT an official docu-
ment of the court but is n7er " piece
: Of worthless paner. Worthless as 6
e proof of dfvorce hut cutie valua BILE tt
the state as indisputah'e nronf tha+ Mr.
and Mrs. Reilly are still bound togetNe,
= by the bonds of natrimony, which
$ never have been dissolved.
Rebuked by the Court
In about minute the gentle
5 men of legal talent were in the nids
II of battle of words, and 1t must b'
{ recorded that courtesy was not th'
$ ammunition they used. Ind ED. this sor
:, of thing had been going on prett,
u much all through the trial. and the pa
r. tie1ce of the court was exhausted
q Judge Kennedy stopped it peremntcr'l'
&c with a rebuke that was $ complete a
> 1t was disnifed. He said:
% Gentlemen. l have tried to be cour
II teous to you throughout the trial of thi
i case case whose chief feature, I oh
ls serve is the amusement the attorney
u must afford to the audience. 7 canno
u understand why attorneys in a cour
should act as though they were in
* bear garden. I refuse to sit on thi
:, bench and be hadrered as If 7 were be
~ fore the bar-beceuse a Justice like
Is necessitv) is sunrosed to know no Law
10 If the person of the Judge is not entitle
- TO resnect, the institution Of the cour
. try which he renre sents is"
10 The court refused to admit the d
:. vnrce decree as an exhibit. because
81 ! held that not having been fled it wa
- 81 inopera tive and herce of no value as
= legal document. The prosecution wa
=, instructed that if TIE woman defendar
~ was married AZ the tin'e of the a'lese
~ commission Of the offen~e of adulter,
~ that fact must be shown. TIE COW
~. would consider Only the testimony ths
w. had been aaduced,
Nv, ne 81 believe" announced the iudg
Nv "ehe is to all intents and pnrnoses
- divorced woman. hence 7 shall disni'
these defendants on the charge of adu
terry"
Then" said tha prosecuting alto
tai nev. 1T instruct the deputy s"eriff wi
he is present to take charge of them viii
,er n charge of fnrni oation is drawn
a" Yes" assented the court, 81 tl7ir
/, the evidence warrants the drawing
.,r such r cornn'sint."
"a. oTnole ard Mrs Reilly were led bat
20 to their cells to await trial.
nix
ay Filled for Record.
ert Tnstrur,ants, were fled Yesterday wi