The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-02-01
HUSBANDV|CTOR|OUS
IN PARSONS CASE
Charles G. Parsons Is Awarded
Divorce From Mrs. Jennie
B. Parsons.
DECREE Is GRANTED ON
GROUNDS OF DESERTlON
Mrs. Parsons Must Be Content
With 1925 a Month for
Six Months.

Charles c Parsons came out victorious
in his action for divorce in Judge Morse's
division of The district court Monday
night as the court dismissed the com
plant OF Mrs. Jcnnio r., Parsons. who
asked for separate maintenance In tho
sum or $500 q month. and granted Mr..
Parsons "A divorce on the ground OF de-
scrtjon.
The case has been ON trial FOR week.
and has been sensational in the extreme.
The evidence showed that Mrs. Parsons
aud her daughter, Neya. spent n small
fortune while travelling IN Europe, ostcn-
sihly for tho education Of the daughter.
but undoubtedly for the prime purpose OF
securing titled husband for the youns
woman.
That tho mother was thinking OF 4
marriage with the mobility for her dauSh-
ter was apDa rent from the letters intro
duccd in evidence. almost all of which
contained accounts OF how the members
OF royalty had fallen desperately In love
with the young American girl and had
even fought duels over her
The Courts Decision.
The testimony was concluded Monday
morning and the arguments Of the attor-
ncys were heard by Judge Morse, Mon
day evening at a special session. Attor-
ney Willard Hanson argued in behalf OF
Mrs. Parsons, and Attorney y. l.. Hop
paush made the argument in behalf of
Mr. Parsons. At the conclusion OF tho
arguments Judge Morse rendered his de-
CisioD, which, IN substance, Is as follows:
''The evidence in the case shows clearly
that, while at the time of the marriage
II was largely one of convenience, new
ertlclcss the relations of the parties were
pleasant and without amy particular fric-
tlon until after February. 1909. when Mrs.
Parsons was i'll Of appendicitis and an OPP
GRAFTON took place. After this time, AIR,
Parsons requested his wife and daughter
to return home. While the letters fol-
lowing were not, perhaps, cordial, nothing
of any special moment occurred until
sons charged her husband with lnddclity
and improper conduct, Thcre seems to
be absolutely no evidence OF any kind TO
support this charge. or upon which Mrs.
Parsons could reasonably have based
such a belief.
Charges Are Repeated.
"Folloviug this letter, there was little
or no correspondence until May, 1904, at
which time Mrs. Parsons repeated the
charge in two different letters, the last
June, Mrs. Parsons sent several tole-
grams She claimed that some were not
answered. The evidence shows that all
cables were promptly answered and cv-
cry demand for money was promptly
complied with.
MIR. Parsons had frequently requested
her TO return home and she had refused
July /. 1904. At this time he suggested
as a last resort. that perhaps she de-
sired a divorce. This suggestion he made
in one letter and in II second letter, fol-
lowing Within n day or two. he said
again: Perhaps you desire divorce
This would be another chapter in our
romance
Mrs. Parsons Came Quickly.
immediately upon receiving these let
ters Mrs. Parsons wired for money to
return home, She stated upon the stand
that she intended 10 return home because
she feared that Mr., Parsons might act
upon his suggestion of "A divorce.
'.On her return TO America she went at
once to Denver, to the Brown Palace.
Mr.. Parsons was at that time OH his way
from Salt Lake TO Denver. Within an
hour after his arrival lIc called at the
istered. and at the Interview was met
with abuse. charges OF inidelity and Or
dered from her apartments.
THE conduct Of Mrs. Parsons at this
time, coupled with previous conduct,
amounted 10 an abandonment and de-
sertion OF her husband, and since that
date she has had no communication with
him and has made no effort at reconci-
iation.
''rhere was no act of Mr.. Parsons
which justified such conduct and not
particle OF excuse because of anything
he had said or done which could explain
or palliate her treatment,
No Effort at Reconciliation.
"Her conduct since shows no effect
upon her part 10 effect compromise or
reconciliation.
The treatment which she accorded her
husband entitled him 10 u divorce unless
her mind at the time was dlsordcred and
derauged. While there has been no sug-
gestlon until near the close of the argu-
ment on the part OF the plaintiff that she
was suffering from d!sordercd mind. still
the court from the evidence. might be
uncertain or entertain some doubt as To
Mrs ParsonS's condition. She may have
been suffering from the physical state In
which she then was or may huve been
affected from some other reason
However, upon the witness stand she
asserts that. now. some five years later.
she still believes the charges to be true
and still eptcrtalns the same adherence
for her husband. At the present she is
clearly rational and her mind Is not af
fected.
Judgment for Parsons.
Judgment is that the complaint should
be dismissed, and the defendant awarded
a decree of divorce
The court made an order that Mrs.
Parsons receive SI25 a month alimony
during the interlocutory period. which is
six months. She asked for $500 a month
for separate maintenance.