Show tinklE SUMMONS IN IN JAMES COOKE IN N AliMONY sun SUIT ii trier Seeking Custody of Child Meets Effort to Collect Judgment When James ames Henry Cooke y of Toronto Canada who is the In a habeas corpus action l' l tSe the supreme court of ot Utah In- In e the possession of ot his little C gi ter Shirley Cooke appeared Judge Judge Chris Mathison's court coult morning for hearing of evInce evince evI- evI nce in his habeas corpus matter was served with a summons in suit which Is to be filed within lays days as a's for accrued alimony ider ter a divorce decree granted his y fe Hilda Betty Cooke by by the of Nevada fhe Te he summons was served by ly a constable at the instance of torney Eorney Frank B. B Scott who re- re married Mrs 1 Cookes Cooke's Ter t er Mrs Anna Bowman Mr ott informed a a. reporter that he heS S Cookes Cooke's attorney in a suit leb would be filed to collect the alimony which he says due under the decree of th the Ned Ne- Ne d EU courts V ir Cooke who had come from ironto Mrs rolls Cooke little Shirley iI kM and the grandmother of the I lid Ild now Mrs Frank B. B Scott I I ared in Judge Judge- Mathison's court I morning for resumption of fearing bring of evidence by Judge as referee for the su- su erne em court ourt Judge Mathison is isI I ki g the evidence introduced In ine ft e corpus proceeding rela- rela ye veTto to the fitness or unfitness of oft I b Cooke e to have custody o of ot the thel n nl I l In t the meantime n e I fin l In the official custody o the oft the edff of Salt Lake county count the f being permitted to live at 3 home with her daugh- daugh I GUE EXHIBITS I Ti morning session of court courtS S staken aken up in arguments introduction of f certain docu- docu nry exhibits relative to court courtin in the Cooke case In I pronto Pronto where divorce alimony md beas beas corpus actions occupied the II I of ot several courts there be- be Pu J. eithe case came t to the United I t tes s and found its way into the uris of 01 Nevada California and 5 th h 11 Attorney Thomas aIred ap aix I red ired with Attorney Samuel A. A n nas ig as additional counsel for Mrs Dice in the habeas corpus matter I 1 raised d objection to I transcript of 01 testimony in the their ir nony ony proceedings of Mrs Cooke I l st her husband in the Toronto rs holding that it It could not perly be Introduced in the he case casei i e e. e Attorney King n to Introduction n of the the- judg- judg roll of the Toronto court In ase contending that the docent doc- doc ent claimed by counsel for plain- plain lQ be the judgment In the case caseto to IJ O Judgment at all aU the tie i. testimony te in this case con- con idea d that relative to the alleged U infidelity of Mrs l Cooke and jUdgment of the Toronto court using Mrs Cooke alimony was ws wasi i d b bv by plaintiff it was stat stated counsel for plaintiff because ItS Its it s based upon and awarded under l re 1 Canadian law which refuses ony to a wife proved guilty of or fidelity I STAINS AINS OBJECTION judge Mathison sustained Introduction of the trans- trans 0 pit tr of evidence in the alimony ie but permitted introduction of of Judgment of f the Toito Toto Toto To- To to ito court refusing alimony to B i was also raised to Induction Induction in- in of records of habeas I pus proceedings In the Toronto irta In which custody of the child awarded the father Judge th hlson son excluded all aU record of evl- evl c ce e Introduced in this matter but the Judgment roll roU of the ther I r rt decreeing the child to the tody of the father isel for defendant also ob- ob to introduction of records of the he habeas corpus proceedings had hadIn hadin hadin in the superior court of or San Francisco Francisco Francisco Fran Fran- cisco and in n this case the Judge deified de- de riled l' admittance of 01 any evidence or testimony In the record but admitted admit ted the record of ot Judgment of this court awarding custody of the child to the father Counsel for fOI Cooke succeeded also in introducing into evidence a copy of the Canadian law known as the Infants act which Is one one that prohibits the granting of alimony to any wife who Is found guilty of Infidelity |