Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-01-30

stance VIII hasMp selGcea from ner duty 10
him. bis wife. The circumstances which al
tended the acquaintance and intimacy which
grew Up between Mrs Millspaugh and the de
iendant are before you; you sill take them into
consideration. snd then you will further consider
the conduct of the parties daring their scqusin-
tance-the acts. the circumstances aud the pia
ces where they resorted to; ard you will view
them With the came observation aud common
sense which you apply to such occurrences;
whenever they come before you you sre not to
cramp Jour judgment By any rule or
law IN determining wha, the mean
ing of particular acts may be. IL appears that
this unfortunate woman call her unfortunate,
because she certainly does not occupy the posi-
ton which every young woman, entering upon
married life, hopes 10 occupy, and is in one
sense Northumberland some loose attach
ments for men other than her husband. She
c~onfesses to having formed them. and We Can
only reconcile her sentiments upon this subject
With those promulgated in the present day
among q society of people called free lovers"
There IL certainly no rule OF ~propriety which jus
titles cher in her conduct toward Halstesd aud
Adams A woman owes a duty TO her no sband
Ii i possible that il she had performed her duty
fully, she might have saved him, il he was really
at any time incorporate. from those habits; she
might. by her conduct. have. perhaps. sverted
the harshness of which she complained, and. II
the Testimony Of some of the witnesses is to be
relied on. justly: Tor. IL you believe their testi-
mony. Mr.. Miilspaugh sometimes treated her
harshly. and on certain occasions used language
which il is improper for any husband to use to
his wife-Ianguage which was not calculated TO
promote affection or respect.
If he INDUCED in drunkenness, il was certain
" calculated 10 impair the happiness Of bis wife.
to impair his Influence over her. and perhaps to
lead her into downward courses as well az him
self; because the husband, as the head of the
family. Is bound To conduct himself in such a
manner a. will afford TO hs wife protection and
respect in the society in which they move Al
the same time il IS the wife's drty to do what she
can 10 keep her husband in the performance Of
bis legitimate duties-io aid him-tO provide for
his comfort so far As circumstances will allow
her 20 do-to oversee her household, aud in mo-
ments OF anxiety and fatigue to perform those
duties OF affection which man cah easily under
stand appertaius 10 the Office Of a wife. Ii the
testimony of some OF the witnesses is tn be relied
upon, both of these parties seem to have partial
" forgot their respective duties, If not fully
Both. perhaps, might have done better. But in
all these failures between the parties to fulfill the
marital relations. there il 10 justification in the
conduct of Seth Adams, the defendent. Ii may
affect the question of damages, and for that pur
pose you vii take the circumstances into con
sideration, but il forms no Justification If YOU
come to the conclusion that Seth Adams sought
Mrs. Millspaugh for the purpose OF seduction and
accomplished that end. winning her affections
from her husband, and seduciDg her from him.
then the plaintiff is entitled to some damage
Those damages will he affected a. "a degree, Of
course, by the value OF her affection to her nus
band By the question whether IN fac, Adams
did draw off her affection from her husband. %
whether that husband. by his own improper con
duet, justified her in some degree in feeling a
less attachment for him than she otherwise
would have felt. 1.-The, BY his conduct. %alienat-
ed her affections from him. the damages will, to
some extent, be lessened in your consideration +;
the plaintiff is not entitled to damages for affec-
tion which he has not lost. or which he has Ges-
troyed. Observe, however. that this does not
justify Adams. 1t is still left for you TO con
slider his misconduct in not forbesring to DO
the injury which he found he had the power to
do ; in not withdrawing himself from the society
of the plaintiffs wife, aud leaving her perhaps TO
the good influences which her husband might ex-
ercise over her, to restore her to n proper sense
OF duty ,She might have been reclaimed 1t is pos
sIble even that those remarks as to her foolish
ness might not have been made by Mr.. Mills
paugh, II there had not been some justifying
cause for il We cannot certainly think her con
duct was wise and il Millsplugh, in the heat
of his feelings or grievances in relation to the
conduct OF his wife and Adams. or her conduct
with Haistead, accused her OF foOlishness, we
eau ndTuiy say tuat ne haiU dnNlDiuE raise, OF
that she did hot bring his harshness upon herself
A different course of conduct might have pro-
duced different results.
ln regard to this decree of divorce which has
been introduced, il is not valid as q bar to the
plaintiffs right 10 recover. You can give II
some weigh, by considering the subject of dam
ages, how far (f you come to the conclusion
that the defendant did not have criminal connec
ton with her previous to their marTiage) ne acted
-, e,O~l f,,tb l. a., lD,a,, 49, 81
fair divorce had been obtained. In that event
you will be justified in taking it into considera
ton, in mitigation Of damages. But II you
come TO the conclusion that he had seduced her
prior 10 the decree of divorce, no such considera
ton will not OBTAIN; or If you come 10 the con
clusion that. as a part of his scheme TO accom-
pllsh her seduction. or To Withdraw and ALLEVIATE
the services Of Mrs Millspiugh from her hus
band. he induced her 10 take the course she did
of procuring a divorce 10 Indiana: then. again, |
consider him chargeable with the offense Of sc
duction, and that the plaintiff has made GU; his
case technically. But il YOU shall coNe TO the
conclusion that he never seduced her prior to the
granting of the decree of divorce, aud had no
part in inducing her 10 take that step. hut that
she voluntarily did il, and induced him TO be her
co-partner 10 that act, why, then the divorce. il
be married her afterwards, ought 10 mitigate to
some extent the damages which you shall visit
upon him; because he married her then under the
belief that she had a separation which the law
granted from any marital rite, she had before
entered into with her former husband If be be
lieyed that III good faith. and had usei no i'm
proper influences to bring ~ about. and has been
in no improper way connected with IL, the di
vorce ought TO 90 in mitigation Of damages
Then il will remain for You to determine which
position he ought TO occupy; whether he ought TO
be considered as having seduced her on the first
or second journey TO Indiana, or At any time
pror TO their marriage.
But the decree OF divorce is 10 be considered
invalid. because the court in Indiana had no ia
risdiction over the person OF the defendant in
that suit A contract had been entered into OF a
solemn nature between MI. and Mrs. Millspaush.
which l. recognized la law rs the marriage rite /:
it is an institution as well divine as human, and
it is protected BY laws both human and divine. Ii
is not lightly 20 De dissolved. The laws of this
state will not permit a dissolution OF the marriage
contract for any consideration except that Of
adultery by one of the parties. A divorce IS al
lOwable for other csuses-as for cruelty or aban-
Comment; but such n divorce does not allow either
party to sontract another marriage and in case
OF a divorce granted for the cause OF adultery.
the guilty party Is prohibited by tue decree
from marrying during the lifetime Of the other
party. These parties were married in this state,
and Mrs. Mills2augh went 10 Indiana 10 procure
a divorce which would permit her TO be married
again, in violation Of the contract which she had
entered into uuder the laws of New York. l.
was a divorce which could no, have been obtain