The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-05-13
LuoAL IMTHLLrGuNCD.
THE KoECKER DIVORCE CASE.
To-day's Proceedings-The Libeiiaut Seeks G
Withdraw-The Question of Enforcing tn
Attendance of the Daughters.
Court Of Common PleaS--JtLdJe PdI

Koecker, libel In divorce, was resumed to-day.
Mr.. Cuyler, OF counsel for Mrs. Koecker asked
leave to withdraw the issues in this case and in
order to give counsel on the other side time to look
into the question, asked that the jury should be ad
journed until tomorrow, when the motion would be
argued.
and to the adjournment, and therefore the Court
ordered the motion to be reduced to writing, and
an argument was at once had.
The Judge decided that after the swearing OF the
jury to try the it too late for the Delant
to withdraw the issues especially in the face OF
opposition from the other side, and therefore the
Mr.. Cuyler then moved for judgment OF nonsut,
saying that he could not consent to try the cause in
the absence of his witnesses.
This was also opposed by the respondents coun-
sell who said that from the beginning OF this suit to
its present stage the Doctor had .een at the whip
and spur of the wife. She had pursued him from
with suit for alimony, when she had an lndepen-
dent estate far in excess OF his She had preferred
accusations of the most blackening and damning
nature against his character and the names
OF two highly respectable ladies' Now,
at the mere caprice OF lady who had
done all this nonsuit was asked which amounted
to mere dscontinuance OF the cause with power
to renew it at any time. The respondent, having
been forced here was entitled to full trial upon
these charges; If they were founded upon anything
like reality, he and his friends entitled to be
made aware of it, so that they might prepare to meet
it. If they were insincerely made and unsupported
by facts it was his right to have this instncerity
made patent by the verdict OF the Jury who were
sworn and were waiting to try this cause.
Mr. Cuyler, in his reply, said that this form OF suf
fering nonsuit was the most usual in every day
be made against it. But If he merely based this mo-
ton upon the discretion OF the court, he thought
that discretion would be exercised by his client in
favor Of granting the nonsuit For when the court
granted such writ as that OF habeas corpus against
the respondent, commanding HIM to produce his
children, no one had right to question the power
to grant 1t, and, having granted It, the power TO
force obedience to it, Relying upon this, and being
surprised by the courts deciding that the writ was
improvidently granted and could not be enforced
counsel could not be charged with negligence il
they unprepared for trial. Certainly the libel
liant should not be visited with the consequences of
the solemn judgment of the court first pronounced
in her favor, and then unexpectedly reversed. On
the point of the right to this judgment of nonsut
various authorities were cited
The Judge said he had no doubt Of the right OF the
bellant in divorce case to take nonsuit, and the
motion was accordingly allowed. And so endeth IN
nothing that which yesterday threatened to be
In regard to the writ OF habeas corpus ad estican
dunn which was issued against DR.. Koecker to COM
pei him to bring his daughters from Boston to tes-
tify for the libeant, and upon his refusal to obey
which counsel for the libellant based motion to
a postponement of the trial, which motion was re-
fused, his Honor this morning disposed Of the mat,
that the libellant was in position to ask
a continuance because of the non-production OF
writ itself The writ Of habeas corpus ad testidcan
dun is q common law writ. to be ISSUED in proper
cases cases by q common law court IL issues either to
confined on board man OF war; and the proper
practice is to take rule to show cause why the writ
should not be allowed, founded upon affidavit of
three things. First, OF the imprisonment duress
second OF the materai'ty or Ghe evidence TO be OBJ
tanned from the prisoner; and third, of the anxiety
or willingness OF the witness to attend.
This last point was entirely overlooked in this
case, and it s not ntimated that these young ladies
desired at all to come here and testify In this trial.
1t may be conceded that they are beyond the reach
of the process OF this COURT yet asked to do
that by ndirection which we cannot do directly, to
coerce the attendance OF these young ladies by
@ bhef t San for IN h OF
have said the daughters were willing to come l
| am clear that the writ was improvidently issded,
and lot inna 10 q nf Ire fnfN
| by reserving the question of my power to enforce
| the writ after it was issued and, having been so
improvidently issued, 1t is now discharged.
The result OF the casea ''nonsuit" for the libel
| liant, Mrs. Koecker-was not unexpected to those
dent weakness displayed the part of the ibellant
AS we could CLEAN from the speeches OF the
gnos
| libellant could have avaed herself OF the oppor-
tunty for taking the testimony of the two daughters
OF DR.. Koecker and yet she neglected to do so. On
Monday last Mrs. Koecker made application to have
the case put down the list for trial, and though
| opposed by the respondent as being sprung upon
him suddenly without reasonable notice, the court
| granted the application. DR.. Koecker came into
ans %as en with
application for a continuance on the ground
nesses for the iibeant and had not been
produced. The Court very properly dismissed the
| rule for continuance, on the ground that as the
lbellant had allowed whole year to pass without
procuring the testimony OF the children she could
not now claim TO be benefited by her own neglect.
and malice with which DIR. Koecker had
| been pursued, eliminating In the attempt 70
| drag his two daughters into public court,
| elected the warmest appreciation from everybody
| present And the conviction forced itself upon the
trial. but rather to force the respondent to set
| uement by threatening the ruin OF his children.
| This Is more apparent TO those who know aoythng
OF the course pursued by the lawyer who conducted
the prosecution Tor libGlant Every means that
could be devised TO poison the mind of the public
and create an unfavorable opinion against the Doc.
| tor was resorted to.
| Every rule or motion before the court, no matter
| how fereign to the subject, was made preJeXt to
drag in the names OF innocent parties and b.acken
the character OF Dr. Koecker. most estimable
young lady, against whose character not breath OF
suspicion existed, was characterized In open court
| as a "wanton," whilst DR.. Koecker was accused OF
| perjury and threatened with the Penitentiary. All
this time the Doctor was eagerly looking for trial
spurDing all offers OF compromise, never yielding
inch either TO solicitations OF his frlends the
! threats OF his enemies. Before the commence
ment OF the suit the offer was made by the cDunse
| for the libelant to compromise all the
dinculties, II the Doctor would pay Mrs Koeckel
$4,000, coupled with the threat, In case OF refusal
TO commence the suit for divorce, which was to ruiz
his reputation forever. This the Doctor Indignantly
refused, defying them to do their worst and empha
tcally determined TO be as Indifferent to blandish
Snents as threats, and to seek public
Vindication against their malicious attacks
After diligently working to that end for
whole year, the Doctor thought he had arrived
the result OF to-days proceedings shows that thu
Vindicaton OF pablic trial Is not 70 be VOuchsaeC
to ham. If, however his vindicatOn is not to bI
established by the verdict OF jury, he will at leas
have the satisfaction OF knowing that he has tn,
sympathy OF his friends and their 1rm belief in hi
| INN N ALI the