The national Republican., 1867-07-31
THE COURTS.
moNDAY.

Vs. Hawkins, begun on Saturday. 4
Mr.. Cook, for the respondsnt, continusd ths
argument. The only question In the base 4, did
the respondent commit adultsry' He wouldpro
oeed 70 show he did not BY the ysry evidence
introduced 70 show that he did. With Clara Bar
bour he did not BY her own evidence. Her
veracity w.s not Questioned; and ID somstimes
happens now that women who hold spiritualistio
vlews live with men tbey love without being
married TO thsm. This does not effect their
character for truth.
With JuliA woodhouss her statement d that
he only solieitsd hsr. The Law, n laid down BY
Bishsp, ID that proof Of osrnai connection Is
Mr.. Davidss ssfd that the aotdai adultery was
proven b. thS witness who saw Il. aaI
Tbs Court, Who 10 that Z
Mr.. DAvidas. Thompson. -.....,
The Court. II don't believe that; II is denied
by both parties. No chancellor in the world
would record snoh testimony. 1slfas :.
Mr.. Cook, esntlnuing. said: As 10 Mrs. Cayen-
der, the only witness d Isaac Williams, her Bit
ter enemy He 10 contradictsd BY her. Hen
nesy swears Williams Is perjurer, and be and
other witnsssss tsstify they would not believe
him on och. Then as to the unknown woman,
the statslhsntl considered In reference to the
time and plaos ID very Improbable; especially
whom II 10 ALLEGED that the act took place under
the eye Of his bitter onemy, Thompson. Major
West tsstihss that Thompson described to him
the same identical act, but boastsd that he was
the perpetrator ~
Mr.. HawklnS daughter testified that In the
middle Of Augsst, 1855, she went to tho store
TO got crackers, and saw Thompson 60 into the
little room with drunken woman dressed In
black, and remain twenty minutes. Then, too,
several witnsssss have sworn that they would mot
believe ThomrPon on oath whore Union man
was concerned. Most Of those who testified In
his favor were like him, men with whom being .
guerrilla, did not lessen reputation. From guer-
rilla warfare to pujury the descent was easy,
''facilis decsnsus Averni." It was rather m
ascent from being guerrilla robel TO perjury,
tio would II he wrote book establish a new
rule Of evidence, that guerrilla should be dis.
credited as witness. Thompson, too, testihes
that he has bitter hate to the respondent
In the oaso Of Julia Woodhouse, Hawkins had
sworn that she came 10 his store and bought q
teapot and . half pound Of butter; she wanted
Il carried home, and as he had no one there he
told her he could not send II. She said It was
so slippery and she might fall down. He said
II Il would do sfter he closed the store, he would
carry It himself He did so, and waited at her
house till she took of her furs and received the
things. This was the truo explanation Of his
visit to julia Woodhouse.
He reviewed the evidence as TO the character Of
Hawkins, and eontended that all the witnesses
ptoNou Ms koVo ounftottfs hto uVhio hhu pttu
a happy one until this more than serpent entered
II. Tho current Of testimony as to his kindness
to his wife ran all one way. He had even strovs
to shield her 10 this transaction, and had other
occasions overlooked her errors. Thompson had
told West that Hawkins had met his wife com
ing out Of his room, and did not like II. But he
bore with her, and only on one occasion, when
she had gone to the theatre with one Of tho
Thompsons, then hs said he wished the theatre
h.d hurnsd da.a snd hurnad thar, Tiki
was to have been expected even Of . good hus-
band. A woman who had welded man had no
right TO 20 TO the theatre without his consent
and without him. He did not believe tho court
would dissolve the contract Of marriage upon the
showing Of the petitioner in this case.
Mr.. Davidgs, for the petitioner, thought II was
. ray Of light In this case that the respondent
had left the graoelsss task Of maligning her to
counsel. The testimony showed Mrs. Cayender
TO be an abandoned women.
Clara Barbour action proved her an abandoned
character. The evidence proved the character
for lswdnsss Of this religious canter. There was
no poetry, wit, talent, or beauty which seduced
him from his duty to his wife. II was brutal
sensuality alone At CLARA Barbour's he called
frequentiy-for Valentine. He might have sent
his porter, but he goes himself, and always at
night. He explains single visit to Julia Wood.
house but there were frequent visits. But his
adultery with her Is proved by George Thompson.
George Thompson 10 not attempted to be dis
credited 1t Is true he is o brother Of Edward
Thompson, Who was q member Of Mosby's gang.
According to Mr.. Cooks new Book on Eyi.
denoe to bs forthcoming, new texts were TO bo
introduced, and not only rebellion, but kinship
with q rebel was to be made q disqualification to
testify, thus robbing them not only Of political,
but taking from them the barrier which protected
their civil rights. How this new principle would
work is shown by the fact that George Teomp-
son was Q soldier In the Union army. In this
neighborhood the terrible war wrenchsd asunder,
not only political relations, but the strongest
ties Of blood; so that the guerilla and the Union
soldier had often been nursed at the sams breast,
Edward Thompson never was In the rebel army,
but was m orderly sergeant In the Union army
aud at one time assistant provost marshal at
Sandy Hook, Maryland.
Mr.. D. continued, taking up the testimony as
to the acts Of adultery, and claiming that the
evidence, all taken together, proved the lustful
disposition Of the respondent, and render more
than likely the adultery charged to have been
committed with the strange woman at tho store,
It being rendered still more likely by the proved
fact that he was in the habit Of drinking and
therefore reckless as to time and place for the
indulgence Of bis desires. To this act there are
two eye.witnesses who testify. The testimony
Of these witnesses Is not discrcdited. As to the
charge that Washington had confessed TO Butler
he knew nothing about II, that evidence was ex.
oluded, for no question had been asked Washing.
ton as to his talk with Butler, and no legal
foundation laid for impeachment as to the at
tempt to show that George Thompson had been
with Mosby's band What legal effect had that
on his testimony! This was an attempt to In.
troduce the Idea Of politics into the law. Ho
was 4 lawyer, and would have more regard for
the political element sought to be introduced II II
had run counter Of the time. But this case was
to be tried according to the law Rato, and not
according to the forthcoming law to bs laid
down In "Cook on Evidence He concluded BY
expires; ng his conviction that this was proper
case for divorce though he did not favor divorces
The court said he did, not believe In granting
divorces readily. A ease Of adultery was tho
only case In which he would, II he wore legis.
lator, allow divorce pineHko though the gem
eral course Of legislation was now the other way
He believed the Institution Of marriage TO be the
most sacred institution that exists on earth, and
II ought to be so treated. He would not grant
Q divorce In this case unless the adultery was
fully proved. Tho case presented married
couple, both, or at least one Of them, without
imputation upon character Tho respondent
till now had had good name, For the past fif-
teen or twenty-five years he had maintained a
spotless reputation, and had been an accredited
member Of respectable church. A man who
had kept such q record for so long a time was
Alal "a + Al r Al