The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1904-12-16
"XATY GIRL" SUED.
orio;na, of Advertising Poster Is Made
Defendant in Divorce SUI. by
Her husband.

ii. Louis. Mo. Dee. l3.-"My client a;
IN. nroper time win defend the suit
,.,inst her today declared l. tha -.
Howe. counsel for MRS. May Lillian
Sp,ayue. whose husband, edward \.
Spra.uc, Yesterday filed petition f9t 'ii-
voree. publication OF .ne news OF lhe
suit excited unusual interest in bust
ness and social circles, where the cuu
pie are we'll known.
Mrs. Sprlgue sat in the private OF
flee of her counsel, Mr.. Howe. today
when he made the statement as To her
side of the ctse. .thuer adfiee from
Mr.. Howe she declined 10 discuss the
matter, personally, but seNera! times
sh,. Interrupted him as he VAS speak
ing.
Mrs. Sprague has continuously lia,i
the custody of their child since hef sep
nra1ion from her husband. said Mr.
Howe. deliberately. AT no tim" has
Mir. Sprasuc raised any objection To-
this arrangement. fhc frs; demand
he has made for possession of She child
is To be found in his petition for II di-
vorce. Tho charges he makes |t!lerei,
against his wife are false and Mrs.
Sprague will seek To continue to keep
in her custody her child us heretofore.
Brands Story as False.
.Stateneents already published are in
correct and the writer's were misiu-
formed. First, we wish to deny tina
Ms. Sprague we shot ut George Nor
ton. general passenger agent of tn"
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad
r~ouipanN,'
Here Mr.. Howe was interrupted aua
asked If he wished To deny that a sllo,
had been fired in Mir. Morton'a office, as
has been stated.
Il simply wish to deny that Mrs.
Splague shot at Mr. Morton,'' declared
the willy counsel.
~"SecondIy.' he continued, " We wisl,
To deny .ihat there ever were any rela-
lions between Mrs. Sprague n Nh.
Morton of the character referred 10.
Their families We're acquainted. That
is not denied by anyone
Relations We're Cordial.
For some time Mr.. Sprague and Mrs.
Sprigue have not lived together, bu:
Very cordial relations have existed be
tween them. Mr.. Sprague called al 49,
Deimar venue where Mrs. Sprasu.
lived with her child. He provided fol
his Wife and child
Here Mrs. Sprague intcrposed the in
formation that on several occasions her
husband had taken the child out With
him.
Does ii not appear strange" on
tinued Mr.. Howe. that Mr.. S2rasu"
shouId continue To visitsthe house if he
knew that another man Vas living
there?
THE relations between Mr.. and Mrs.
Sprague up to the last few days have
been very friendly. although they We're
living apart. and h filing of the ID
vorce suit is a great surprise 10 Mrs.
Sprague."
II wish YOU would tell him also" in-
terposed Mrs. Snrague, that ii is not
true l was madly infatuated with MI.
Norton
MIR. Howe stated that Mr.. and Mrs.
Sprague separated in June. III was =
case of incompatibility." he Continued.
Not Madly infatuated.
Il will not file an answer to Mr.
%Sprague's petition till February /.
which is ample time" said Mr.. Howe.
Asked if Mrs. Sprague will file "A cross
bill. Mr.. Howe said that poirt has no;
been determined.
Mrs. sprasue's maiden Mann was
May Lillian Parks; her mothers name
was Mrs. Iina Parks. but she has re-
Gently remarked and her rams and
Chicago address are unknown here.
Mrs. Sprague refused to be seen or to
make any statement last might.