The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1871-02-10
THE MILLER DIVORCE SUIT.
SEVENTH DAY-THURsDAY FORENOON.
Closing Argument for the Kespoh"en'

Il fioultV preparing tuc tcSllllOny lOu udy I(
| day: 10 the disadvantage and embarrassment
of being a stranger, to the influence which had
been brought to bear, the difficulty of procur-
ing counsel in the Cumberland Bar the in.
fuence that had gone abroad, the mouths Of
witnesses had been stopped He said we came
before you under chilling influences; he had
heard nothing of the cause till he arrived.
Inc defendant had not brought the
cause here. He was elected defendant in this
case, compelled to attend, they have made
their bed, they have spr q d it before you, they
must lie upon it. 1t is not voluntary on the
part of the defendant CT his counsel that GER
tain persons are mixed mp with these transac-
tons, and have projected themselves into the
web of history that makes up this domestic
transaction; he should deal with them fairly
and honorably, no matter who they are or
what position they hold in society, whether
rich or poor, honorable or dishonorable, they
are the same to us; whether witnesses or par
ties; here they must stand upon their individ.
udlity, just like any body else. We are not re-
sponsible for the publicity of the trial. The
plaintiff chose to bring her case into court and
court is a public place. She has arraigned
her own husband here before the court. This
defendant did not choose to be annihlated in
all his domestic relations, and have it done in
a secret chamber or an inquisition. He chose
that the publication, not to say justification
which he had, should be made as broad as the
charges had been made written out and spread
upon the records Of the county; known and
read Of all men; a one sided view of the whole
case. We are not responsible for the publica-
ton out side the court house; have no control
over the reporting of this case, or the publica-
ton in the papers of the details Of these sad
and lamentable facts; not responsible for this
crowd of men who have assembled here from
day to day to hear this case tried; not respon-
sible for thehladies assemblage here from day
to day outside of the parties and witnesses in
this case; delicate and sensitive females as they
ought to be and as l suppose they are; gather
ing into the court house, a public place, to
hear public scandal; ladies suppose from the
high circles in societies in the city OF Portland;
know nothing about that.
There has been two arguments upon the 9th
er side; the opening statement of the plaintiffs
counsel was an argument; instead OF testlmo-
ny upon the stand from distinguished citizen
of Portland we had another argument; We are
distinguished member of the bar of this city;
trust mag 1t please your honor, zoe are not to
haze one from any other source!
In looking over the report of the opening ar
gument of plaintiffs counsel, there were some
charges upon which no testimony has been Of
fered. The same thing has happened in de-
fence.
The libel first contained charge of adultery,
made on the 18th day of Aug. 1870, very soon
after this woman left her home, spread upon
the records of the court, openly, publicly, and
vet when he comes to open his case, he is
port it, that it was without foundation. He
amended his libel, struck it out and abandoned
it, and while he has not the courage to make
the charge squarely, it has been made by an
other process by indirection,. under the euse
of proving intoyication in the Thorn
as block TO prove adultery and fasten stig-
ma upon this defendant. I don't believe the
first word of that testimony; don't think you
do; the witnesses testify to adultery by infer
ence and to the sign and the flour Positions
80 fhnra ftnr,
there was long afterwards; it is fabrication
1t had nothing to do with the issue in the case
and was introduced under the guise OF lntOxi-
cation which was not proved on that OCCASION
There are but few questions of law in this
case; it is matter of your sound discretion to
determine the rig hts of these parties, address
ed to the enlightened judgment OF the men
upon this panel. Ordinarily juries should in
civil cases strive to agree and settle the rights
of the parties and end litigation. This is a
kind of case where each jury should act up
on his individual opinion. What is the issue
in this case? The libel charges that n. j. Mil
Ter is now and for years last past has been
guilty of drunkenness; for four years has been
and still continues to be common and habitu-
al drunkard. The question comes up to you,
what is it to be a common and habitual drunk
ard. What is to be lawyer from year to
year; it is the ordinary business of man &C.
cupying his time and attention; the an who
smokes once in while is not a common smok-
6rs PERHAPS u HAL WIN OuC6 Ill d Wullc COucS
into this remarkable circle in the City of Port
land to play game of whist and takes glass
of wine and does not take it at any other time
only when he comes into this circle, this vortex,
is not a common and habitual drinker. An ha-
bitual drunkard is man who is drunk large
portion of the business hours of the day
This defendant has not been in that condi-
ton; has been able to attend to his business
regularly, and to support his family. 1t is not
charged that he has not done that. We do not
deny that he has been intoxicated; don't pal
late it; we mourn over it, regret it, so does ne.
I only represent his own feelings on that sub
ject. But intoxication with him has been the
/ exception and not the rule.
The counsel here recited the testimony bear
ing upon this charge and proceed to the next
charge in the libel, that of cruelty. He read
from reported cases that cruelty as cause of
divorce must be something more than words,
it must endanger life or limb The definition
excludes all language, however, vile or vulgar
they may be, as ground OF divorce; it is dan
ger to life, limb or health, or reasonable
ground to apprehend danger; the taste, the
feelings may be offended; it does not amount
in law to cruelty. The counsel rediculed the
apprehension of danger from the cup Of tea
thrown at the plaintiff, but not hitting her;
the telegram of which brought her father from
Brooklyn to Portland and which she herself
afterwards treated as a joke. The evidence
was trifing ON the matter of joking; not testi-
fed to directly by the witness, but brought in
as concession IN COnVerSdllOu III WDiCu uo
does not admit the charge, but promptly and
Indignantly denies.
The counsel next discusses the knife and
Ratchet scene. The story comes from Phebe
Anna Peters. I feel kindly towards Mrs. Miller,
sympathize with her in her troubles and sym
pathize with this defendant in his troubles
What does the witness tell you? SerutiniZe
her testimony; on the direct examination she
says she sat in her sisters chamber, that he
came home with a great knife, and she says,
don't, or something like that; was very much
alarmed and frightened; did not know what
she did say; that he carried her up stairs. On
cross-examination she did not mean that he
carried her up, only took her by the. arm. He
went down to his mothers; was gone an hour;
came back into that same chamber, f1ourlshiDg
the Ratchet. On the characterization, she
said that he threatened to kill her, when he
followed her with the knife and Ratchet. On
the cross-examiDation she took 1t all back and
confess that the threats were made to Phebe
when she was alone. don't know how manv
grains of truth there are in this scene. know
there are great many grains of errors in it
and that is all know ABOUT it. When Mrs.
Miller told Statira that she had this difficulty,
she said nothing about the jack-knife and
nothing about threatening to kill. You will
remember in the cross examination that Pbebe
testified that ia this scene, neither she herself
nor her sister made any cutlery or called for
help. Her sister called for no one to come to
the rescue. That something took place l have
no doubt; what it was in its length, breadth and
origin, we have no sufficient proof; with the
means Of proof in their hands, protest they
have utterly failed.
There has been something said about cruelty
to the children and something against both
parents Now believe Mrs. Miller, in the
treatment of her children, did sometimes, in
the pursuit of her pleasures and her gayities, a
little neglect them; but she has ordinarily
been kind to them and loves them as any other
mother loves her children. And, on the Other
hand, the same is true of the father. The tes-
timony is full upon that that point, that wheth.
err drunk or sober Mrs. Miller herself stated
that she felt that the children were perfectly
sole IN his hands. The papers put into the
case signed by the defendant say but little Of
cruelty or drunkenness; that was not in the
minds of the parties; they were thinking o.
else.
We next proceed to the matter of recrimina
ton. I say it is improper that divorce should
| be granted to party who has herself contrib
uted to produce the very results OF which she
| complains. If this woman, by her own mis-
| conduct has contributed to this drunkenness
| and violence of which she complains in this
| case, say it is not only unreasonable and i'm
| proper but an outrage upon all the rights o
man that have ever been recognized from the
| origin of courts down to the present. time, tt
| grant her divorce in this case and strip thi.
| husband of his children and of his property
| while she shall go out of Court alone with his
| children to live with another man. l believe
| you will say as honest men that if she has con-
complains that public interest and propriety
demand that she goes from this Court as she
came into it, a married woman.
Now, gentlemen. believe we all will agree
the testimony in this case is overwhelming tina
| Mr.. Miller when sober is as kind, gentle ans
peaceable as any man IN the community. The
of nc 1ooIr al the OrjDn OF this welded lite