Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-10-23

was his wife. "All of the information
regarding his being divorced from de-
tendant and married to the Gillness
woman was obtained by her since the
first day Of January, 1910, and prior
to that date. she had no notice, knowl-
edge or information by which she
could discover these facts. She then
retained E. E. Brossard of Columbus.
Wisconsin, to investigate the matter
OF plaintiffs residence, divorce and
the like. On February II, 1910, de-
fendant first saw certified copy of
the Judgment roll in plaintiffs divorce
action. The statements contained in
PLAINTIFFS affidavit for an order for
publication Of summons as to defen-
dants place of residence and domi-
cile were false and untrue and were
known by plaintiff to be false and un-
true The defendant further swears
that she never was in Mankato, Min
nesota, except, possibly to pass
through such place on the train; that
she never received the summons in
the suit for a divorce and had no
knowledge of the tendency of the pro-
ceedings until January, 1910, and was
ignorant Of any fact or circumstance
that could have lead to the discovery
thereof The defendants sworn dec
larations are corroborated by the af-
fidavit of Mae Dahl to the effect that
at FELTON,, Minnesota, in March, 1906
the affiant visited the defendant whom
she found in serious condition with
marks of violence on her face and
throat and learned that she had been
severely beaten by the plaintiff; and
that a delegation of women of that
place waited upon plaintiff and Lu-
cille Evans, the young woman whom
he represented as his daughter, or
dered her to leave and threatened her
if she did not comply with the COM
mand; and that the plaintiff suddenly
disappeared from that place about
June, 1905. The sworn statements of
| the last affiant are substantially con-
firmed by the affidavits of Otto Dahl,
Lewis Gilbert and Catherine Barry,
who reside at FELTON,, Minnesota. The
affidavit of Arthur H. Johnson, the
person mentioned in the affidavit for
the service of the summons by publi-
cation, is to the effect that he is the
plaintiffs cousin and acquainted with
the parties hereto, each of whom he
knew in Wisconsin. He deposed as
follows: "Affiant further says that
the plaintiff above named never at
any time inquired or this affiant
either orally or in writing, the resi-
dence, abode, whereabouts or post
office address of the defendant That
affiant never at any time told plain
tiff, or wrote him that tn edefendant
was not a resident of Oregon, or that
he believed that the defendant resided
in the town of Mankato, state of Min
nesota, and never told or wrote any
one to that effect. That affiant never
heard of defendant residing in the
town of Mankato, Minnesota" The
affidavit of Albert Voth is to the eff
feet that in January, 1910, when plain
tiff visited Wisconsin he evidently en-
deavored to conceal from the people
of Columbus in that state the place of
his residence. This declaration is cor
roborated by the affidavit of E. E.
Brossard, the defendants attorney.
The plaintiff filed an affidavit contro-
verting the sworn declarations here
! inbefore set forth, and stating in eff
feet that the affidavit for the service
of the summons in the divorce suit
was made under the honest belief that
defendants residence and abode were
then at Mankato, Minnesota; that be-
/ fore making such affidavit he tele-
phoned Arthur II. Johnson, resident
of Portland, Oregon, who informed
him that the defendant had left Eel
ton, Minnesota, to attend normal
school at Mankato in that state; that
affiant has since been informed that
she left FELTON, to attend a normal
school at Moorehead. Minnesota. The
plaintiff further deposed that defen-
dant's motive in seeking to set aside
| the divorce is to secure a part of the
property which he subsequently inner
tied from his parents; that by the
means which she thus adopted an eff
fort has been made to impose upon
the court and to blackmail him; that
relying upon the validity of the di-
vorce he again married and if the
decree is set aside it would ruin him
financially, make him technically
guilty of a crime and place upon his
present wife a fearful social position
without any fault of either. The
plaintiffs counter affidavit is corrob-
Grated by that of his present wife.
An affidavit was filed by Arthur II.
Johnson explaining his sworn state
ment made in behalf of the defendant
in referring to which he deposed as
follows: THAT since the making of
such affidavit have had a conversa-
ton with one of the attorneys for the
plaintiff herein, and have been by him
shown certain papers with a view OF