| OCR Text |
Show TiiK JUDUr! WAS ANUHY. tiller Jusllio Xsne (Irnnls Mrs. bullh a lihorro as l'rjje.l. It was closo upon tl o'clock last evening even-ing when the divorce caso of Magglo Hmlth vs.CfcurlesSinlttl etas aubmlttcd to Chief Justice Kme. The ault was brought en the ground of extreme true-It, and its main particulars wore lublhthod lu tho Nl.ua of Thunjay and yesterday. An Important pjlnt In the litigation, and ono upon which the attorneys for tho parties persistently conteuded, was that with reference to certain properly wliloh tho defendant owned prior to his last marriage, and which he transferred to a Mr. Morgan. Tho plalutll! asked for a decree for Bmlth's Interest In the same, while tho defendant fought the claim, but nt the tame time declared that his transfer trans-fer to Morgan was bonatlde aud that he cow owne I no Interest In It. It was Intimated by counsel for thu plaintiff thatBnilth transferred the property to avoid the payment of alimony to his first (deceased) wife. JudgoZaut', In re-adoring Mioplnlop, said: The marriage which thu plain-till plain-till lieru seeks to annul Is one of thosu unfortunate) atlalia which now and then tome before a court. Acoordlng tu Iho, testimony ot the plalutlir her husband has beeu guilty of many atU of cruelty toward her, souio of his conduct bulng extrrme. Hu refers to the Incidents himself, but denies the cruelty, alleging that they wtre mere trivial matters. mat-ters. As the plalntlll's testimony testi-mony Is corroborated, 1 think thu olurgcs of cruelty are sustained by thu evidence. As to thoollniDuy it seems that thu plalntlft Is wltnout means and has an Infant child. 1 also think that thu uvldencs uf thu defendant's ability to pay allmouy Is conflicting, as It nil deiMindd upon a deed tu his property which ho exeeuted to Murgsu. Thu question arises as to whether thu pro-urty pro-urty belongs to Binlth or not. Hut I have but llttledoubtlhat thedeod from Bmllli to Morgan was fraudulent, Morgan's testimony on this point was contradictory and ovaslvo aud I consider con-sider Itn casu when audi a witness should bo dealt with by criminal procedure. pro-cedure. Morgan talked like he mi telling an untruth. Hu stated that ho got the money to pay for the pr.qierty from one Drlggs, but Drlggs Hotly contradicts con-tradicts the statement aud rays that lie didn't supposoliu was to I ay any money on tho notu which figured In tho trans-action. trans-action. 1 he testimony of Drlggs,though, was also unreasonable', and I don't believe that liu told all lie knew. I don't think, however, that Morgan got any money Iroin him. Ihedeputy sheriff who servud tho In-Junction In-Junction on Morgan tn prevent htm dlaioaing of thu property, swears that Morgan told him that he had no Interest Inter-est In it, and many things go to show that Morgau nud Bmltii both acted fraudulently lu thu matter and that lirlgga knew II. There Is alio con-Hitting con-Hitting testimony with regard to the value of tho property, but I would Judge that it was worth about $10,000 were It not encumbered. I am disposed Ui grant the plaintiff her decreu nud thu custody of her child, I will allow her alimony In tho luniofJVjOil, puyablu lu lustullmeuts tf $300 each every six; months, beginning begin-ning January 1.1S03, tho total sum lo Ihi adjudged a llrat lieu ou the defendant's defend-ant's properly, excepting a udgment recently rendered nguluil it, BjjJssalBaaaika-M-ey"Wtg |
