The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-02-01

ed UP her personal belongings and de-
parted from defendants home, going
to the home of her parets in this city:
that she took with her also the two
children, Bruce and John, the latter
at the time being seriously III. That
| by so doing she exposed the life OF the
said child, Jonn. to very serious dam
ger; that plaintiffs leaving her home
under such circumstances, and taking
the children in the manner as afore-
said, was Immediately followed by the
service Of summons and complaint
herein; that all OF said acts upon the
part of plaintiff were wholly without
cause, excuse or provocation, and were
planned and designed with the effect.
and that they did have the effect Of in
fiictipg great and grievous mental and
bodily suffering upon defendant; that
said actions of the plaintiff created
gossip and gave rise to the circulation
of scandals, all without any excuse or
provocation whatever upon the part
Of this defendant, and all of which
caused him great and grievous bodily
and mental suffering and anguish.
That by reason OF all OF the facts
hereinbefore stated, plaintiff has in
fiicted upon this defendant great and
grievous mental and bodily suffering.
and has destroyed his peace of mind.
and has rendered it impossible for
him ever again to live with the plain
tiff as ner husband"
The prayer of the answer Is:
Il. That the complaint of the plain
tiff herein be dismissed.
2. That final decree be made here
In, granting unto defendant an abso-
lutte divorce from the plaintiff.
3. That the custody of the minor
children. Bruce and john, be awarded
to this defendant.
4. For such other and further relief
as to the court may seem meet and
proper" g.
. Mrs. RindIaub's Reply.
To such counter-clalms a reply was
served admitting THAT she has stated
in her complaint in this action that
the defendant has been guilty Of habit
ual inteunperance in the use OF NOR
phine and other narcotic drugs, and is
and has been addicted to the use Of
morphine as in said complaint alleged.
reference thereto being had" And also
That on or about the, 22nd day Of No
vember, A. D. 1906 she left her home
taking with her her two children
Bruce and John, and that she upon
the same said date commenced this
action by the service upon the defend
ant of the summons and complaint"
but specifically denying the other al
legations. both as to extreme cruelty
and desertion. .r
We have thus fully set FORTH the
various contentious of these parties as
disclosed in their pleadings as we deem
IL necessary to a clear understanding
and a proper disposition of the case.
The learned trial court found against
plaintiff on her first cause of action
and against defendant on both coun-
ter-claims. deciding in plaintiffs favor
on her second cause Of action, namely
extreme cruelty. In view of, the fact
that the action is here for trial de novo
we deem 1t unnecessary to review the
findings of fact and conclusions Of
law in this opinion. Such findings
ad conclusions cover forty-six pages
Of the printed abstract, going in to the
minutest details of evidentiary mat
ters. whereas If they had been proper
ly restricted to ultimate facts and
conclusions much less space would
have suff1ced. Such practice is not
to be commended, and should be dis
continued. Counsel, no doubt, are
largely to blame by proposing findings
in this form. ...
Both parties nave appealed and ask
a review and retrial of those issues
only which were decided adversely to
their respective contentious. ..
Defendants printed abstract con-
tains 1901 pages and plaintiffs abb
stract $3.50, a total of 1851 pages.
There are printed eight briefs, So cali
ed, four ON each side, the number of
pages in PLAINTIFFS briefs being 1913
and ~ defendants briefs AL Plain
tiffs abstract duplicates everything in
defendants abstract, as we understand
II, with other matters not material
to defendants appeal. This was waol-
ly unnecessary and a useless expense.
We have, at the expense of other
equally important business before
this court and with much care and
patience read this great mass of
printed matter and we are convinced
that much of this work was wholly
unnecessary. The issues are simple
and there is no reason for such a pro-
tracted trial. Much of the testimony
is repeated and much more wholly ir-
relevant and immaterial. One-fourtb
Of the time consumed was, we think.
amply sufficient.
We refer to these matters at this
time because this case presents in so
marked a degree the fragrant abuses
SO frequently INDUCED of the privileges
given litigants by the so-caned New
man law, which law requires that all
evidence offered on the trial of GER
tain cases must be received. Such
abuses, If persisted In, should, and no
doubt will result in the repeal of such
law, or an amendment thereof, that
being the only remedy.
We will first consider tine questions
presented on defendants appeal. Ger
tain questions are raised and present.
ed by separate briefs upon the judg-
ment roll proper. These need not be
considered In view of the conclusions
reached on the other features of the
appeals. Nor, for like reasons, need
we notice the plaintiffs preliminary
motion to strike from the record GER
tain uncertified documents and papers
enumerated in detail In her brief on
the judgment roll proper.
Her Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
At the outset we are confronted with
motion by plaintiffs counsel to strike
from the record the entire statement
OF case on defendants appeal. The
grounds of the motion are epitirnized
by counsel as follows:
First. BY causing the judgment
roll proper to be filed in the supreme