The Portland daily press., 1867-11-19
IoNAL MONv.
Interesting DeceJOpemsents.
Extrajudicial Proceedings.

buC tuUSIcSO UcCOu11ug f1oTe Intense as the issue
draws near.
Messrs. Stanwood and Smith of Portland
Messrs. Currier and Dumphey of Boston were
successfully called by defendant, and all testi-
fed substantially that they had been employ
ed by Mr.. Cooke, as clerks in bis drug store
during some portion of the ten years embraced
by the courtship. They were acquainted with
the plaintiff; had frequently seen her in Mr..
Cookies store; his conduct toward her there
was the same as toward every other lady ac-
quaintance; they never thought he conducted
himself toward her as a suitor; other ladies'
were in the habit of calling at his store as FREE
quenty as she did; they were more or less in
the habit of attending dances and other public
entertainments, when plaintiff and defendant
We're both present, and did not observe that his
attentions to her were any more marked than
towards other ladies' the parties had never, to
their knowledge, held themselves out to their
mutual friends as engaged. bfr. Currier also
testified that Mr.. Cooke tried to avoid the plain
tiff when she came to his store that on two or
three occasions Mr.. Cooke seeing the plaintiff,
coming had gone down cellar, telling him to
inform her that Mr.. Cooke was ont: he had
seen the plaintiff in Boston several times since
the marriage of defendant; thought she look
ed better than before his marriage; he had met
plaintiff at Mr.. Cookies fathers; she was max
ing visit of one or two days; other ladies
were there to tea, but no Others stopped all
night; they had all known Mr.. Cooke to make
presents from his store to other ladies as well
as to plaintiff. ~aH
Frank Stevens, of Pittston, had known the
parties to the suit ten or fifteen years: had
been at places of amusement where they both
were; there was no difference in defendants
conduct with plaintiff and with other ladies';
couldn't say as they had held themselves out as
engaged.
George Rogers, of Gardiner, had known the
parties from childhood; had attended nearly
all the dances in Gardiner; had known defend
ant to go with plaintiff to dances, but thought
he had been with other ladies as much; thought
he had been as attentive to other ladies as to
plaintiff, and more so; had been in the habit
of making calls with Mr., Cooke; had often
called on Miss Williamson; sometimes the
family were in the same room and sometimes
not; he had left Mr. Cooke alone with Miss
Williamson; knew that he made Miss Will
hanson present; he was receipter to the
Sheriff for defendants stock of goods attached
in the suit v.eya
james White was also a receipter for the
stock of goods. His testimony was merely cum
ulative, as to some points in the preceding tes-
timony.
l.. l.. Plummer had known the parties seye-
raj years, but never thought the defendant ever
showed the plaintiff any marked attention:
never knew that they held themselves ont as
engaged 8ad9
Robert Williamson was the father of the Miss
Williamson referred to by the proceeding wit
nesses; defendant had always been intimate in
his family and had been in the habit of calling
at his house quite frequently Sunday evenings;
he has often called alone; had sometimes taxi
en- his daughter to ride, but there was nothing
about his visits different from the calls of other
gentlemen. fT
Miss Sarah Gould, Of FarmngdaIe had been
acquainted with defendant from childhood, and
with plaintiff about ten years; Mr. Cooke had
been in the habit of calling at their house very
often, and sometimes Sunday evening; she had
visited his fathers house by invitation, and
had known other ladies to visit there beside
the plaintiff; he had made other ladies' presents;
their two families had always been very inti-
mate; defendants visits at their house were as
the ordinary calls of gentlemen.
Miss Mary Wilder Cooper, of Pttston, was
second cousin to defendants wife, and had
known the parties to the suit many years; had
been accustomed to meet defendant in society
in Gardiner and Pittston; plaintiff was not
generally there; in August or September, 1865,
she had conversation with Mrs. Lambard in
relation to the engagement of these parties;
Mrs. Lambard thought they were not engaged
and never had been; don't recollect that said
dreaded to hear from plaintiff after defend
ants engagement to Miss Varney was an
nounced.
Miss Adelaide Cooper, sister to the preced-
ing, was at Waterville Commencement three
years ago; Miss Varney, defendants wife, and
Mrs. Brewer, plaintiff s sister, were there at
Fannie PIaisted's; Miss yarney asked Mrs
Brewer if Mr.. Cooke was engaged to her sis
ter, the plaintiff; Mrs. Brewer said no, and she
and her sisters wished Eleanor would have
mind enough to keep out of his store and let
him alone she didn't remember any other con-
versation, and didn't know how that was in
troduced.
Mrs. A. FL. Small had known the parties
many years. and had heard rs Lambard say
that she did not think they were engaged
Miss Margie Hodgkins, of Bath, had Known
the parties since 1857; she went with Mr.. Cooke
to q dance at Togus; the plaintiff was there
the same night; was visiting Mrs. Lambard at
that time; thought Mr.. Cooke had been more
attentive to other ladies than to PLAINTIFF she
had been to his mothers to tea with other
ladies'; she had conversation with Mrs Lam
bard in 1858 relative to the engagements of the
partics Mrs. Lamba3d thought Mr. Cooke
would never marry the plaintiff; thought she
was much more in love with him than he with
her; Mr.. Cooke often called when plaintiff was
visiting st the same place with herself; always
inquired for her and never for plaintiff; thought
defendants attention to her was intended as
something more than friendly calls. -
A. H. Small had been acquainted with the
parties since 1863; was at Waterviile Com
mencement in 1854 and took walk with Mrs.
Brown; they were speaking Of Mr.. Cookies
engagement to her sister; Mrs. Brewer said
Eleanor ought not to follow up Mr.. Cooke so,
for she did not believe he would ever marry
her; in September, 1864, he called at plaintiffs
fathers and went to ride with her; they were
speaking of love matters, and he asked why
she did not get married she said she pre-
sumed she should never marry; she didn't
think Mr.. Cooke would ever marry any one
he told her he had heard that Mr. Cooke, the
defendant was engaged to her; she said she
was not at that time engaged to any one. On
cross-examination, he said he was Solicitor
of Claims, and had not acted as counsel in
this case; had never gone to Mr.. Clays office
for copies of letters in this suit; had never told
Mr.. Whitehouse that he was third counsel in
so demeaned himself.
The deposition of Robert Gould was then
read, tending to show that the plaintiff had ac-
knowledged to him that she was not engaged
to the defendant, and here the defence closed.
The plaintiff then introduced some rebutting
testimony.
Mrs Brewer was recalled aud denied the
conversation attributed to her at Wateryille
Commencement by Miss Cooper and Mrs.
Small The plaintiff being recalled denied
g having the conversation with Mrs. Donnell at
the hotel, as stated by that witness, and also
the conversation spoken of by Mr.. Small on
the ride. sfEFf EfR
MI Whitehouse then went upon the stand
and exposed the misstatemepts of A. III.
Small by showing that he had said that he
was third counsel in the whole id thino and
that he had made the infamous request to have
the letters in this suit shown to him or con;os
furnished. This tended to throw discredit IN
uI,.Io -