Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-09-25

II don't remember"
when you paid him last, were you
owing him or was be owing your
Il don't know"
What amount did you last pay
hlm|
Fifteen or sixteen dollars"
How did your accounts then stand?'
II don't know: l don't 80 over my
books every day"
Attorney Crltchlow could see that II
was useless for him 20 try 20 get a
satisfactory reply from the witness, 50
he gave him up In despair. and appealed
90 the court for reasonable allmony for
Mrs. MCkenna, even on the statement
Of the defendants brother that he was
only getting $50 or $50 a month.
Judge Hles told Attorney CritchloW
that he could take his decree, and at the
same time made an order that the de-.
PENDANT pay his wife allmony In the
sum Of $500. az the rate OF s25 a month.
500 attorneys fees and costs Of suit
PREFERS TO LIVE IN DENVER.
Edward McCleery, a railroad engl-
Qeer, obtained a decree OF divorce from
RebeCca J. McCleery on the ground Of
desertion. The plaintiff, who was rep.
resented by Judge John Il. Bagley, OF
Ogden. testified that he married the
defendant az Washington. Iowa. on OC-
tober lst lkE, and that during the
month Of August, 1885, she deserted him.
Two years ago he went 10 Denver %
see his wife, and tried TO get her 90
come and live with him again. "She
said she wouldn't live with me again. "
said the plaintiff, unless ! agreed 20
take up my residence Ia Denver"
Z. II. Wlcks, an accountant who has
known plaintiff for twenty-five years,
corroborated the plaintiff on his trip
% Denver story, McCleery was award
ed a decree.
WANTED HIS FEES FIRST.
The divorce suit Of Ruth Newson vs.
Louis ]. Newson, which has been hang
ing fire for several years past. would
undoubtedly have been determined one
way or the other today. but for Attor-
ncy T.. w. Taylor, who objected 20 the
case proceeding until ne had been paid
his fees, amounting to $50, or was given
satisfaction that he would get them
some time DO the future, either from the
plaintiff or defendant.
Mr.. Taylor explained that he was the
attorney OF record In the case and as
such had given his personal attention
20 the various details incident 20 d.
yorce proceedings. He proved by the
record FOR october 18th, 1898. that At
torney II. IT, WatrOus was substituted
for him upon payment By the plaintiff
the sum ~ --- dollars to Attorney h.
w. Taylor AT the time the order was
made he had NOT figured up how much
Mrs Newson was indebted TO him, which
accounted for the blank space IN the
record, but since then he had concluded
his services were worth SIS. All he
had been paid was S25. and he now
wanted the balance Attorneys had
rights, and where a client would have
one attorney DO an the work and then.
when there was nothing 20 do but 10
examine "a witness or two. 10 hire an
other 20 finish the business. the first
attorney should be protected by the
court.
Attorney d n. Straup, representing
the plaintiff said he knew nothing OF
what Attorney Taylor had been talking
about. save what had been told him by
Mrs. NeWs0n and her mother Both
had assured him that Dir Taylor had
been settled with In full He did not
want any controversy with q brother
uWyer over The question OF fees That
Nas a subject dear 20 the heart OF every
rue lawyer a fellow feeling makes
inc WOnlrUus kind" He was anxious
10 have the suit determined and to
how his good faith In the matter. ne
vas willing that Brother Taylor"
.hould take Che lead. examine witnesses
.tc, and appear as attorney Of record
Nith himself merely as associate coun-
.cl.
Attorney Taylor would not consent 90
his arrangement, Mrs. Newson had
cen nc % employ another attorney, and |
nat was sufficient Tor him. What he |
low wanted W4s 20 De protected IN his |
lgit Nh Staup insisted that no one |
vas trying 90 Do him ont Of his rights. |
I want Attorney Taylor 10 60 ahead"
Do sad even IL / do not get a cent for |
MS own services"
Judge liiles held that Mr.. Taylor stln |
as attorney Of record In the /
asc. even " The previous order ala |
.ot state The amount he was entitled |
% receive, Mr. Taylor claimed the or 4
et was never complied with. and that /
'ft the matter IN exactly thh position /
was before ne order was made
Il VIII entertain a motion 10 set /
side the order OF october 10. 1895 on /
aturday next said his honor. and the
-ial Of the issues win be postponed /
NIL that motion Is disposed or"
This was satisfactory 10 the attoI-
eys and The incident ended
The case Of Maggie Hoagland VS.
rank HoagIand was stricken from the
llendar In order that a demurrer 20
be- complaint might be argued on Sat
rday next The other cases were dis
osed OF as follows:
Minnie Mcdonald VS. william Nc.
onald: continued for the term.
Edith J. Bevan VS. Edward Beyan;
lntinued TIL October 18th.
Clara II. Hutchinson VS. William Hut
linson' referred 10 Clerk Blair.