OCR Text |
Show OF ANQIEER'S CLOTHES "Here Is a real Gordlan knot. It Is to be untied by. Judge Whltaker of the City court. 'It" Involves the" romances of three lives and centers about the life of Andrew P. Maybe try, 78 H street, a, well-to-do mining .man. - Interwoven through the tale are two marriages, a divorce and a. tailor-matoe gown. The gown has become the bone of contention conten-tion the apple of discord. Suit has bean filed In the civil division divi-sion of the City court by Mrs. Mary A. Mayberry, the divorced wife of Andrew P. Mayberry. to -compel the latter to pay certain bills, which the complainant complain-ant declares she Vald. and which she asserts were contracted at the Instance of Mr. Mayberry for Mrs. Violet Beck, now Mr. Mayberry's wife.- , The plaintiff declares that while she was the wife of Mr. Mayberry. she. at Mayberry request purchased dress roods front a local store for Mrs. Beck. This.- It Is contended, was done the day before Christmas. 1900. Whether the same was to be a Christmas present Is not stated in 'the complaint. It la asserted as-serted that the transaction was done solely on the defendant's . request, and that the plaintiff paid for the1 same from proceeds of her own pocketbook. Then Christmas' day rolled by. and "Happy New Tear." 101. came and went, and the story ' was again taken up on April 10. 1901. Again at the special spe-cial instance of Mayberry, it Is alleged by ' Mrs, Mary A. Mayberry,-the dress goods wera cut and fitted for Mrs. Beck. Then the dress was finally completed ; and the bill had to be met. Mrs. Mayberry May-berry declares she paid for it all. The two transactions, she declares, amounted amount-ed to $30.25 and for this amount she asks judgment. Aside from the present suit are other court records that tell a tale. In the District court clerk's office Is a bill for divorce, and a decree. The decree was entered August 28, 1903. by Judge Stewart. Stew-art. . ' ' .' ' ' ' The suit was filed by Mrs. Mary A. Mayberry against Andrew P. Mayberry. In it the complainant charged, the defendant de-fendant with desertion. She contended that, on August 18, 1902. Mayberry left her and refused to return. They were married at Leadvllle on April 2S. 1887. Since the divorce proceedings It Is said that Mayberry has again embarked em-barked on the sea of matrimony. His present, wife was formerly Mrs. Violet Beck. : ,. |