The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-07
A MATRIMONIAL M|X-UP
Affairs of Mrs. Kitty Carroll
Sweitzer in Court.
ILLEGAL DIVORCE ALLEGED
Iaken Under Amusement : Iniun ction
in the Amy g. Silversmith Case
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Other
Matters Decided,


day afternoon, and the court will decide
at some future date whether her mar
rage to Frank Sweitzer was legal or
whether she innocently committed big
amy by marrying him when she was
still the wife of Seymour Carroll Mrs
carroll and Mr.. Sweitzer each secured
divorce on the 18th of last January
and week or so later the two married
each other. A month later Sweitzer
was Killed in the Rarus mine, leaving
two children, $500 in insurance and two
women who claimed to be his widow.
| Inc original widow asked that the pub
| lie administrator be appointed admins
| TRAITOR Mrs. Carroll Sweitzer also APP
| Piled for letters. A sister of Sweitzer
! Mrs. Lutey asked to be appointed
guardian Of the children, and Mrs.
Sweitzer, the original. also asked to be
| appointed. Attorney NJ. D. Leehey at
tackled the right of Mrs. Carroll-Sweit-
ger on the ground that both her own
| divorce and that of Sweitzer were OBJ
| tanned Illegally, for which reason the
divorces We're void and the subsequent
| marriage Illegal, and for the further
reason that the law of the state pre-
vents parties to a divorce suit from
| femarfylng within certain periods of
| tlme Ihe attorney of Mrs. Carroll and
or the Sweitzer estate applied to the
court TO amend the dead mans decree
OF divorce. This matter was taken up
| first at the hearing and was submitted
| TO the court. The applications for let
| ters OF administration were next heard.
| Mrs. Kitty Carroll SweitZer testified
| That she was SweitZer's widow, having
| been married to him on the 25th of last
FEBRUARY She said her husband was
| Killed in the latter part of March, and
LETT four sisters, one brother and two
little children She said she was the
same Kitty Carroll who obtained di-
Vofce from Seymour Carroll last Janu-
airy. The judgment roll in that case
was offered in evidence, also the papers
relating to the publication of the sum-
mons.
Mrs. Nellie Sweitzer, the predecessor
IN interest of Mrs. Carroll Sweitzer in
and to Frank SWeitzer, testified that
she was the Lizzie Swetzer who was
named as defendant in a divorce suit
brought last December about the same
time that the Carroll suit was insti-
tuted. The papers in the Sweitzer suit
were also introduced in evidence
MI Coombe argued to the court that
Mrs. Nellie Sweitzer was in all respects
a single woman and had no authority
TO give her consent to the appointment
or J. T. Collins as administrator He
SAD II the decree of divorce in the
SWeltzer case was amended it would
settle the whole matter and determine
Mrs. Carroll-Sweitzer to be the person
entitled to letters of administration
IN his reply Mr.. Leehey argued that
the summons in the Carroll case was ill.,
legal, and that the Sweitzer case was
also illegal because the proper name If 4
the defendant was not used in the case
The attorney then raised the question
whether the code provision relative TO
the remarriage of divorced parties were
applicable The law, which says the
guilty party to divorce shall not mar
ny again IN three years and the inno-
cent party in two years. has always
been ignored by attorneys on the
ground that the law was void and I'M
constitutional. but the question has
never been decided by the supreme
court, and Mr. Leehey argued that the
law was in force and that Mrs. Carroll
marry.
AT the hearing of the guardianship |
matter Mrs. Nellie Sweitzer said she
mad not been in position to support
her children before, and had to permit
others to keep them.
MRS. Lutey, who is resident of Mad |
lson county, testified that she had sun |
ported the children for seven months |
ana was willing and able to continue |
supporting them independent of the
estate. Judge Lindsay took the whole |
matter under consideration.
Judge Lindsay yesterday afternoon
oVerruled a motion for a temporary in
Junction in the case of the Amy & Sill
Versnlth Mining company against Jo-
seph Annear and others. The motion
mad been made on the answer of the de-
tendants Benjamin F. Annear and AL
fred Johns, on the ground that the ma
terlai allegations of the complaint were
admitted. The court said he would at
subsequent date hear the facts and
would then determine whether an in
should issue
Judge Lindsay also passed on the
folloWing matters yesterday:
Meuora Mahan VS.. George W. Pat
terson, order made adopting and con-
liriiliFs the report of Dan Yancey, ref
cree, and directing that moneys in the |
possession of defendant be delivered to
the sheriff of Silver Bow county.
FRANK boucher VS.. Joseph Barsa1ou
motion for new trial overruled.
John P. Reins VS.. Silas F. King, mo-
ton for new trial overruled.
w. Nee. White VS.. Sloan & Meow
arn, motion for leave to file an amend
ed complaint sustained.
j. e. Healey VS.. John McKenna ct
al, demurrer to complaint so far as
the defendants Bachelor and Colligan
are concerned sustained. AS to the de-
PENDANT John McKenna demurrer over
ruled.
James Ryan VS.. E. o. Dugan ct al,
motion to strike from the separate an
swer of Thomas R. Kinds, defendant.
overruled.
F. w. Cowan VS.. Minneapolis Gold |
Mining and Milling Co., motion to strike
rom the defendants answer overruled
Harry Melville VS.. Charles Fl. Nickel |
It al, motion to strike demurrer of
defendant Jacob Graf from the files
sustained In the same action the de-
nurrer of Charles H. Adelheid Nickel
vas overruled
James w. Purcell VS.. Richard Butler
It al, motion to strike from the sepa-
ate answer of Fitz H. Butler over
'uled.
The motion of Ida J. Parker for leave
0 prosecute without cost further pro-
eedings in the matter of her applca-
ION for sole leadership was denied.
In the matter of the estate of Pat !
lex l., Regain 6pceacpI tho