| OCR Text |
Show THE JUDUU WAS ANCIltV. Chler Juttlrr one (Irani. Mrt. hulth a tittorce at I'r.jcd. It waa oloso upou 0 o'olock latt evening even-ing when thedlvorce cam of Maggie Bmlth vt.Charle) Smith wnt submitted to Chief Justice Zane. The ault wai brought on tho ground ot extreme cruelly, aud Its main ptrtloulart were lUbllahed In the Ni:wt ofTburtlay and J etterday. An Importantpolut In the litigation, and oue upon which tho attorney! for the ptrtlea persistently contended, waa that with reference to certalu property which the defendant owued trior to his last marriage, and which lie transferred to a Mr. Morgan. The plalntm asked for a decree for Bmllh'a Interest lu tho tame, while thu defendaut fought the olalm, but at the lame time declared that' lilt transfer trans-fer to Morgan wat bouaflde aud that lie cow owned ni Intercut In It. It waa Intimated by countel for thu plalnllU that Bmlth transferred the property to avoid the payment of alimony to hit first (deceated) wife. Judge 'anc,ln tendering l.lioplnlon, tald: The marriage which tho plain-till plain-till heruteeka to aunul It one of those unfortunate allalrs which now aud thou como before a court- According to the testimony ot the lilulnlllf her buiband hai beeu guilty of inauy acta uf cruelty toward her, tome uf lilt conduct being exlr.nio. Ho refert tu tho Incidents hlmsulf, but denlea thu cruelty, alleging that thoy weru mere trivial matter. mat-ter. At thu plaintiff' teitl-mouy teitl-mouy It corroborated, I think tlio ohargca of cruelty aro sustained by thu evidence. Aa to tho alimony It teemt that the plalnllfl It wltnout moans and liaaaulufaiitchllil. I also think that the ovldencu of the defendant, ability to pay alltuouy ll conflicting, at It all de.endt upon a deed lo hit properly wliloli ho executed lo Morgan. Tho queetlou arltet aa lo whether the properly prop-erly belong! to Bmlth or cot. Uut I have but Itttledoubt that the deed from Bmlth to Morgan was fraudulent. Morgan'! testimony ou thlt lwlut wot contradictory aud evasive and I consider con-sider It a case wheu tueli n witness should be dealt with by criminal procedure. pro-cedure. Morgan talked like he was telling au untruth. He stated that he got the money to pay for the property from one Drlggt, but Drlgga flatly contradict! con-tradict! thettatement and euya that he didn't suppose he was to pay any meuoy on thu note which figured In the tram-actlou.ThetestlmonyofDrlggi,ihough, tram-actlou.ThetestlmonyofDrlggi,ihough, wat also uureasouable, and I don't ballevo that he told all he knew. I don't think, however, that Morgan got any money from him. Thudoputy eherltr whoaerved tbo Injunction In-junction on Morgan tu prevent him disposing of the property, swear! that Morgan told htm that ha had no inter-ett inter-ett lull, and uiaoy things gotdthow that Morgan and Bmlth both acted fraudulently In the matter and that Drlgga knew It. There la also con-Hiding con-Hiding teatlmony with legord to the value of the properly, but I would judge that It wat v. orth about $10,000 were It not oucuiubered. I am dlspoaoa to grant the plalntllr her decree ami thu custody of her child. I will allow her alimony In tbo Biimof $5.'IXI, payable In Insttllinent of ?30d ouch every tlx months, beginning begin-ning January l.IbOJ, tho total sum to be adjudged a Ural lieu on the derenl-aut't derenl-aut't property, excepting a udgtuout ivceully tendered against It- |
