| OCR Text |
Show oo LETTERS OF THE COOPS AREEAD A package of old letters that had passed between the parties wero delved into and the contents of some of them offered In evidence in the Coop divorce case in Judge Harris' court this morning. The letters were written In endearing, but rather discomforting dis-comforting terms. The object of the introduction of tho letters was to show wilful desertion de-sertion on the part of Mr. Coop and the incompatibility of temperament between him and his wife. The letters let-ters wero written after Mrs. Coop had been taken to Chicago in the fall of 1S07, ostensibly to attend school, but In reality for the purpose, as stated by counsel for the defendant, for Coop to get rid of her at the time of the commencement of the suit by Mr. Coop. Mrs. Coop is contending for separate separ-ate maintenance on tho grounds that she has been deserted by Mr. Coop and that he still refuses to live with her. Mrs. Coop testified that she had frequently Implored Mr. Coop to let her come to his home and live with him. Sho said that Mr, Coop came to New York in the latter part of last year in company with her niece, Miss Janet Cook, she bogged him to permit per-mit her to return to the home in Salt Lake and remain with him as his wife. Sho testified that she told him sho would bo willing to do anything to make their lives happy, but, she said, he told her the best thing for them was a separation. "I insisted on returning to Utah with him, but he would not listen to me. He put me off and would give rac no encouragement toward a reconciliation," reconcili-ation," Mrs. Coop said In a dramatic way. Mrs. Coop testified that, in 1907, Mr. Coop suggested to her that she take a course of training In Chicago for school teaching in the Utah schools. She stated that he wanted her to take up the teaching of French She consonted to do as he suggested. She said she was placed in the charge of members of the Mormon church in Chicago, but that, Mr Coop did not come to see her during the ensuing year. Sho Importuned him many times, she said, to come and see her, but he only gave promises. She met ' him at a later time in Now York and tried to "mako up" with him. When r.ho became fully aware that Mr. Coop intended to desert her, ene started to work for her own living, teaching French an J Uiod oriwu, ... a dress-making establishment Mrs. Coop said that faho first met Mr Coop in Franco, their engagoment taking placo in London. They lived lu auu i-a.uc auei wc marriage and until Mr Coop sent hor eist to go to school. A letter writton to Mrs Coop by Mr. Coop while she was In Chicago was Introduced In-troduced in evidenco, tho contents of the same being to the effect that a separation wns inovitable, a part of the letter read: "Under these conditions, I can see nothing but continued separation. It means more to you than It does to me. I offer you your freedom that you may readjust your life. It is an unhappy situation for me, but I am acting under an outward force." In a letter answering this, Mrs. Coop told Mr. Coop that she could not understand what had como over him and sho implored him that she bo permitted to return to him. In part, the answer said: "If you desire to give me my freedom, free-dom, you ohould como to me-and tell me the reason for your attitude. If I had the money. I would come to you immediately and learn what the roasons aro. 1 cannot stand this mnch longer." . This correspondence took place in the fall of 1908 Tho estrangement has continued since that time, and Mr. Coop has refused to live with hor. Regarding the earnings of Mr. Coop, Mrs Coop stated that from looking over his account books while she was at his home In Salt Lako, she learned that his monthly income was from $600 to $650. Mr. Coop testified that his earnings do not exceed $350 a month and that at timos it is below that figure Ho stated, however, that thoro may have been a month In the past two yoars that he realized as high as $500 as compensation for his services in the university and in the teaching of music pupils He stated that ho had classes in Ogden and Salt Lake, making mak-ing tho trip to Ogden twice a week. Mr. Coop made a detailed statement of his receipts and disbursements and also stated what his aBsets are As an asset, he said that he had $1,500 In the hands of the Knickerbocker Trust company of New York that was to bo given iMrs Coop at the time of the Issuance of a decree of divorce to him by the Utah courts Ho could not say whether the money is now his or his wife's. Mrs. Coop had agreed to the divorce proceedings, he said, and he had left $1,500 in Now York as a part payment on the agreement, agree-ment, another $500 to be paid at a future time. At the opening of court this afternoon, after-noon, Judge King stated to counsel for Mr. Coop and the court that ho had no disposition to disclose closeted family skeletons, nor go through all tbe letters and other correspondence between Mr and Mrs Coop and Miss Cook of the past two or three years, but that he Insisted on separate maintenance main-tenance for Mrs. Coop and in doing so would ask only that which is right, in the light of tho ability of Mr Coop to properly provide for his wifo. The judge Inferred that It would require re-quire a number of days to go Into the matters contemplated and that It would bo a tedious and far-reaching investigation In response, Judge Willis, who was called into the case this morning as associate counsol for Mr. Coop, said that Mr Coop did net. expect to escape es-cape legal responsibility regarding his marital relations with Mrs. Coop, but that he was ready to defend himself against exorbitant alimony. He thought enough testimony had already been given to guide tho court In a decision Judge Harris advised the lawyers that he would not sit much longor to hear the family affairs of the parties, suggesting that enough testimony had been Introduced to warrant him in rendering a decision, unless tho plaintiff, plain-tiff, Mr, Coop, should succeed In rebutting re-butting and disproving the statements of Mrs. Coop. The attorneys and the parties to the action finally held a conference In tho Judge's chamber and agreed that Mrs. Coop should be granted separate sep-arate maintenance and the lawyers began the argument regarding tho amount of money that should be allowed al-lowed .Mrs Coop for her support. Yesterday's Proceedings. Attorney H. H Henderson, for the plaintiff in tho divorce case of Squire Coop against Carmen Coop, before Judge Harris yesterday afternoon, W sprung no little surprise on William j m H. King, attorney for tho defendant, W when he stated that tho plalntiif; Ifo "would rest" without introducing tea- jfe timony. 1. ft In making the statement to the Ie court, Mr. Henderson took occasion "lfj to say that the parties to the action fc were married in New York In tho year 1901, they coming to Ogdea. ' soon after tho marriage They learned fe howoer in a short time that they wero not suited to each other. Tho .n attorney stated that there appeared h to be an Incompatibility of temperament tempera-ment between them, thoy had their llttlo "spats and quarrels" until 1907 when Mrs. Coop went to Chicago to attend school. The attorney said that Air Coop furnished money for tho schooling Bnd supported his wife In a way commendable to her station, but that a reconcilllatlon between them seemed quite impossible, they could agree only on one question ' ' separation." In July, 1910, the nttorney said 1 Squire Coop went to New York, j where he met Mrs Coop and talked il with her regarding their estrange- 'I ment A separation was agreed upon, j L' the terms being that Mr Coop should Jt' pay Mrs. Coop $2,000 cash It was iRc also understood, Mr Henderson said, yjM that Mr Coop should return to Utah ? and petition the court for a divorce, W and that Bhe would not contest the I case. A Mr Coop camo to Utah, said the lawyer, and filed the petition, but no j sooner had it been filed than did the defendant protest, claiming that the grounc s of desertion, alleged in tho i petition, were falao. Then Mr. Coop 111 visited Mrs,. Coop again, said Mr. Hen- j derson, this time agreeing to pay j her .?2,500. It was thouc-ht by the 1 plaintiff that the matter was settled, . J but ho found tnat Mrs. Coop still pro- tested, she filing an answer that the 1 charge of desertion in the petition i was untrue, and, as a counter-claim, j setting up that Mr Coop had desert- 1 ed her and had failed to provide for her In the counter-claim Mrs. Coop asked for separate maintenance Attornev Henderson had scarcely finished his statement when Judge ; King sprang to his feet and hurled j 'bitter words toward the atto-ney for the plaintiff and the plalntltf him-self, him-self, denouncing the attitude of tho plaintiff It appeared that both of thq attorneys were imbued with tho spirit of antipathy that actuated the contestants, for they spoke In bitter tones and used rather mean words. Judge King said that the state- ment made by Judge Henderson In connection with his utterance that he j would "rest" the case without offering offer-ing testimony, was uncalled for, and 1. (Continued on Page Eight.) g LETTERS OF THE COOBS ARE READ (Continued from Pago Six.) made, "evidently, for the purposo of influencing the court and mitigating tho wickedness of tho plaintiff." Mr. King said that Mrs. Coop had pleaded with Mr. Coop for him to return to her, or that sho be permitted to go to her mother In France, but that ho Insisted that he be granted a divorce. "He came home from Now York after af-ter meeting her thore and telling her that a divorce was wanted, and deceived de-ceived the court In order to get the I divorce. The statements from counsel coun-sel for the plaintiff como from a de-praed de-praed soul. This girl was hero In a strange land, among' str ngers, and she did not know what to do." Mr. King stated further that ho thou&ht It unfair for tho plaintiff to briug Mrs. Coop into court In a suit for divorce and then refrain from introducing evidence to prove his case. He resisted the suggestion of the p aintlff for dismissal, if it barred ( In any way the right to give proof in support of the affirmative allega-tlons allega-tlons for "separate maintenance," which the defendant was contending for. The attornov stated that Mrs Coop desired support from Mr. Coop and that she opposed the petition for divorce. X Judge Henderson resented the imputation im-putation ,that-fhlsqliet was pf a depraved de-praved mind, whereupon Ju'dgo King stated, that he did not mean to say that either the plaintiff or his attorney at-torney was depraved. Mr. Honder son stated farther that instoad of "resting his case" he would moe that it be dismissed. To this, Judge - . King objected, claiming that the do- ' fendant should have the privilege to im prove affirmative allegations, upon j which were baaed the prayer for 'sop il arate maintenance" The court de- 'M nlod tho motion to dismiss and the defendant offered testimony In sup- ; m. port of her contontlon. Mr. Coop was called to tho witness , I stand to testify regarding the marlt-' ul relationship, the questioning b- I lugi confined, largely , to the question. I of his earnings ns a professional raus- I lc teacher and instiuctor in the state I university j In answer to Judge King's question 3 as to whether he considered himself i a competent instructor in music, Mr. ! Coop said that he did not know that "' he was. Further questioning elicited ths fact that Mr Coop Is emplojed ! by the university ns instructor in J music, that he also conducts the or- j chestra at the Colonial Theatre in p Salt Lake, and that he has private V students in music whom he Instructs P for money $ Mr. Coop .stated that he did not fy think hla monthly earnings amounted to more than $350 and that he was S quite sure that they did not reach 5 tho ?500 a month figure He said ho R had about thlrt students to whom he f gave lessons once a week at $1 50 a fT lesson Ho said his salary at the n unherslty amounts to ?2,000 a year, I and that his earnings aside from that k are not very extensive f When asked whether he correspond- I ed with Janet Cooke, he said that he did, tout that he could not remember Q of writing her that he "was swamped ft with business of m profession while J" others of the profession were hungry." , Ho stated further, that Janet Cooke is ! his ward, but that he was not living tf with her, nor supporting her He said ' i that the young lady is In Salt Lake, ? and that he had furnished aomo means for her support In the past, Further testifying regarding his :j financial circumstances Mr Coop said p he had $700 or $S00 In the bank, and 'fc about $1,50) in New York with a T friend, he stating, however, that ho understood that that money had been ? attached He said that he had a few hundred dollars "out on interest, nn- |
