OFFERS A NOVEL DEFENSESlntnte nf Limitation* Sft ( p In n Divorce Suit.Tn the ilivurce oaso in which Pharlos Biizc Lc se‘ ui-p separation fromIt Is wife, Mho now liven At Annapolis, Ind., a novel defense was outlined Id the reply of the defendant lo the plaintiff’s pe Lille n fllml yesterday. Mr.I3oo55e was the father of two smallchildren when he married his stu'ondwife nearly twenty yeang ago. He says that after two years of married life he- InfLbis home because his wife mistreated his children. He Is now in court seeking re'W. Mrs Tiooz-?, through her attorney, replies alleging that If vrhftt Mr. Booze alleges should prove to be true he has no relief, because the ants complained nf wer? committed at least seventeen years ago. In the divorce sutt against DavidM. Harsh brought by hir, wife, the tilninflff rnncjnHv oolrnd lt;ilt;a i