The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-05
OTIS MAY NOT SUCCEED
In Getting a Divorce From His
Wife, Now in New Mexico.
HAS A COUNTER DEMAND
Denies That She Deserted Him and Has
Always Been Willing to Return.
Sarah e. Grant Wants
Divorce.

| Ora c. Otis may not succeed in get
| ting a divorce from his wife, Bessie
L. Otis, even If she is in New Mexico.
She has met his demand for a separa-
ton with a counter demand and is evil
| IDENTIFY going to give him battle in the
courts. Her answer to his complaint
was filed yesterday along with an affi-
davit and several other kindred papers.
| In it she makes a general and specific
denial of all the principal allegations
| in Orra's complaint. She declares that
! it never entered her head to desert the
defendant, however much he may have
| deserved it. She further ayers that she
| went to New Mexico in October, 1897,
| on short visit to her mother. The
| visit was made with the knowledge and
consent of the defendant, and during
all the time since she has been willing
| to live with him. She alleges that he
| refused either to support her after she
reached New Mexico or to provide her
with means to return to Butte, and
adds that he is working and able to do
either or both of these things, while
she is without funds.
| The answer states that Ora and Bes-
sic We're married on Jan. 27, 1897 and
that there are no children. The prayer
at the end begs that the divorce be
granted to the defendant and not to the
plaintiff, and that the former be award
ca permanent alimony at the rate Of
$40 a month, also an attorneys fee
of $50 and the costs of the suit The
| accompanying affidavit says that the
1 defendant acknowledges the service Of
| the complaint and summons, that she
| is in New Mexico and that she has a
good ground of defense to the action
brought by her husband, but no means
to hire a lawyer. 1t adds that the plain
| tiff is drawing from $50 to $1OO a month
from his employment.
The case of the Montana Union Rail-
way company against Peter Wastle was
tried before Judge Lindsay yesterday
without jury. The suit involved the
| title to strip of land so by so feet in
size, situated within the boundaries of
the South Butte railroad yards, from
the possession Of which the plaintiff al
| legged it had been elected by the defend
| ant. The defendant set up title in him
self to the property in controversy. but
when the case was called for trial did
| not appear. After the introduction of
! documentary and other evidence in sub
sanitation of the plaintiffs claim. the
court ordered judgment in it's favor for
| possession of the ground and for sol so
| damages and costs.
The case of George H. Casey VS.. A.
Anderson ct al. was begun yesterday
| before Judge Lindsay. This is an ac-
ton by the plaintiff to recover from
the defendant named and about 70
others a certain portion of the Hes
perus lode. The case has been in the
supreme court, having been instituted
| in the year 1892, and is now up for trial
! as to four or five defendants only the
major number of whom are represented
| by EllaT Knowles Haskell. The trial
| l@r1 ,l,,.o
John Hickey, and as to the defendant
| named and all others, the plaintiff
waived his claim for damages and asked
| only for restitution of the ground. The
| defense of Mr.. Hickey is that he has
| been in adverse possession of the prop
| erty in dispute since 1888, and that as
| to him the plaintiff has no title. jury
was secured late in the afternoon and
| the introduction of documentary evil
| dence begun. One witness for the plain
tiff was examined and the defendant,
| Hickey, was granted leave to amend his
| answer
| County Physician p J. Sheeran yester-
| day filed complaints against John Bar
| ker and Frank Kelly, charging them
| with insanity.
In the estate of John McPharland,
| decea sed, the adminiStra tor, j. p. Col
| Inns, filed a return and account of sales
| of personal property and petition of
| confirmation and approval; also tbs
| final account of the administrator and
petition for discharge. The first paper
stated that the administrator sold at
| public auction on Nov. II, 1899, per-
sonal property, consisting of judg-
ment for $S5O.25 secured by the admin
istrator as such against James Kyle,
to M. D. Leehy for $35. 10. The second
paper related that the whole estate
| amounted to $3.50, the money received
| from Leehy and $50 in cash, and that
1t had been distributed in the admins
tration of the estate.
Sarah E. Grant wishes to be divorced
from James Grant, and she began suit
in the district court yesterday. Non
| support is the ground upon which the
| plea for divorce is based. The COM
| plainant AYERS that by reason of idle
| ness, prof1igacy and dissipation the de-
| PENDANT has neglected her and also fail
| ed to provide for the plaintiff for a
| year Mrs. Grants name was Sarah
Elizabeth Sulett before she married,
and she prays that the honorable court
give her a divorce and destore to her
her maiden title. She asks for no ali
mony and there are no children.
The suit of A. B. Black against James
Denoon was dismissed upon the request
of the plaintiff.
The complaint was filed in a suit
brought by James M. Hinkle against
f. l. Nelliger to recover $1OO and in
| terest at the rate of 8 per cent. from
April 10, 1898, on promissory note
| The plaintiff in the case of the CITY
| of Butte against A. F. Bray yesterday
| filed notice of an intention to move
| for a new trial.
In the suit Of the Anaconda Copper
| company against F. Augustus Heinze
| a notice of a motion for judgment on
| the pleadngs and a statement of the
motion We're filed, The notice stated
| that the plaintiff would move the court
| for Judgment on the pleadings in the
action on Saturday, Dec. 1G, 1899, or
| as soon thereafter as counsel could be
| heard on the grounds that the answer
| filed in the case is frivolous and the
allegations of the answer immaterial
| and raise no issue The motion will be
based on the pleadingS in the case.