The Canon City record with which is consolidated the Canon City cannon., 1916-12-07
F.E. THOMAS
is ASSESSED
81 DAMAGES
BY JURY

The suit of Chas. c. Howard OF
Denver against Frank e. Thomas of
this city for damages in the sum of
$4,000 for the alienation of his wife's
affections was given to the jury at
$50 p. m on Tuesday and at 2
o'clock this afternoon verdict was
returned finding the issues of the
case in favor OF the plaintiff and as
sessed the damages at one dollar. Ten
days was granted attorneys for the
plaintiff to file motion for new
trial.
Only three witnesses were examin-
ed at the trial: all OF them having
been called 10 the stand by the plaiE-
uf"s attorney. In such cases as the
one at issue the plaintiff has the right
under the statute and the procedure
of courts OF record TO summon the
defendant TO the witness box for
cross examination. and. under this
rule. Mr.. Thomas was placed on the
stand to testify to certain matters
pertaining TO the case. Other witness
- were ENtN- fn- "hC
testified that he knew Mr. and Mrs.
Chas. c. Howard in Denver and that
the latter was a teacher in the sun
day school OF his church there. Rev.
Van Keuren's evidence related large
Is 10 the domestic relations existing
between Mr.. and Mrs. Howard at that
time. which. he stated. were happy, so
far as be knew.
Mr.. Howard. the plaintiff. testified
that he lived at 1875 Paul street. Den.
yer. and that he was married 10
Olive May Markham at Lee. Berk-
shire county. Mass. on October 18th.
1899. The marriage certificate was
introduced in evidence in corrobora.
tion OF his statement. Immediately
after their wedding. the witness stat.
ed. they went 10 Piaianeld. New Jer-
--~~y. where they lived for eight years.
They removed TO Denver in 1901.
cr part OF the time since then. aitho
they resided in Canon City foF short
period.
II was developed at the trial that
Mr. Thomas. the defendant. was one
time associated in a business way
with Mrs. Olive Howard. wife of the
plaintiff. in the manufacture OF arii-
fetal flies for trout fishing. in the
making OF which Mrs. Howard was an
expert. While tie latter was living
IN Denver negotiations were carried
on between the plaintiffs wife and
the defendant looking to partner
ship in the profits OF the business.
Mrs. Howard claimed that she had =
sS,,k of trout flies on hand that she
had made that had n market value
Of $500 and Mr.. Thomas promised 20
advance her that amount of money
and take the stock as security for its
. payment. provided It inyoiced that
' much. Mr.. Thomas. according 10 his
own testimony. advanced Mrs. How
ard money several times previous TO
the offer of the $500 loan. which she
used for the pnrpose of advertising
the artificial trout fies alluded to and
in travelling about the state TO place
them in the hands of the retail trade.
Mr.. Thomas went to Denver at the
time TO oiier to loan Mrs. Howard the
$500 referred to and started to assist
her in making an inventory of the
stock OF trout flies she had in her
possession. on ascertaining that
their value was only about half OF
what he had been led TO suppose II
was Mr.. Thomas refused to advance
the money and returned shortly after
wards TO Canon City. Mrs. Howard
thereupon brought suit against him
for $1,000 for uon.performance OF
contract and the case was heard in
the district court in Denver in Feb
ruary OF this year. The jury brought
IN verdict againat the defendant
and assessed damages against him in
the amount OF one dollar.
The theory OF the defense thruout
the proceedings In the matter heard
before Judge Cooper on Tuesday was
that the case was instituted for the
purpose OF exiorting money from the
k1fendant. altho no evidence was
presented tending to establish such a
premise. The most damaring testi-
mony against the defendant produced
,Nt the trial was contained In letter
: kgt:scn .Ly the defendant to Mrs.
Olive May Howard in Denver. bear.
ing date OF August 1ith. 1914. which
was read to the jury. In this lettsr
the defendant invited Mrs. Olive May
Howard. tho plaintiffs wife. 10 come