The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1871-02-06
THE MILLER DIVORCE SUIT.
THIRD DAY.

urday, the court room Dc1ng crowded as uSua
showing that there was no abatement of inter
est on the part of the public The first wit
ness called on the part OF the lbellant was
Alonzo NentOorth-Reside in Portland ant
was Deputy Marshal of the city for six wears
am acquainted with N. ]. Miller and once hat
occasion to send him home in the horse. car
because he was intoxicated; he was in front O
the City Building ut the time; this was abou
four or flve years ago; can't tell exactly when
but it was short time after the cars begai
running on Congress street; don't recollec
ever nrrestng Miller; have seen him since tina
time frequently Intoxicated in the streets aDt
once in the station house.
Cross ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS say -exactl,
when sent him home; it was not this year; ii
was SIX or seven years ago should think; he
was leaning against a lamp-post in front OIL
City Building at the time; the indications OF
his intoxication when [ have seen him have
been an inability to walk.
Rufus Il. HiaELey-Reside on Deering street:
am acquainted with N. j. Miller; saw him in
toxicated in the spring of 1870; l lived within
four doors OF his house at the time, on Spring
street; on q Tuesday evening, late ia the
wi1ter or early in the spring L came down the
steps out from my house. 1t was raining and
had been showing; as got to the foot of the
steps put up my umbrella and noticed gen.
tleman ahead of me the way I was going;
hurried somewhat as i was on nv way to
church, going towards the gentleman; when
opposite him l went to pass him, giving him
plenty OF room, when found his fist under
jumped back and asked him what he meant
he made no reply and then saw who he was:
did not know before; L noticed that he was
intoxicated; L waited a moment til. he turned
towards his OWE house, not wishing to be dis
covered by him; put my umbrella SO as to
hide my face; then attempted to walk by
him as got opposite him, keeping to the ed
of the sidewalk. He then struck my umbrella
with his. which he carried folded, SO forcibly as
to break the handle and somewhat injure the
upper works; FASTENED on and was about to
cross by Park street when I saw lady coming
down Park street; turning I noticed that Mil
Ter was behind me, about such distance that
he and the LADY would be likely to cross each
others track, and therefore thought would
wait and protect the lady if necessary; as the
lady approached Mr.. Miller reached me at the
edge OF the sidewalk; l spoke to the lady and
advised her to turn back and she did SO; Miller
then gesticulated at me and told him to 90
home, speaking quite sternly; he obeyed, going
towards his home, but came back again, I stop
ing to see how the matter would terminate
again told him to go home, and he did so and
went into the house.
Cross examinations Have known Miller at
least fifteen years, pe-haps more; it is within
four years since 1 first saw him intoxicated.
perhaps three; we are dealers in the same arti-
Giles and consult with each other about prices.
we are not near each other in business, I being
on Smiths wharf and he on Long wharf: j
have known nothing about his business for the
last five years, except the part that pertains to
lumber and box shocks; don't know general
ly about his business; when not in liquor he
has been perfectly gentemanly and courteous
and in all his business transactions straightfor-
ward; have never seen anything, when sober,
to the contrary.
". L. Putnam, testified :-Know Nathannl j.
and Mrs. Miller; have known MIR. Miller some
IL years (slnce came to Portland to reside)
and MIS-. Miller very soon after her marriage;
have met heT at social gatherings in Portland;
was Mayor OF Portland last year.
Strout-What instructions did you give the
police about Mr. Miller?
Baker-I object. objection sustained)
Putndna-l have no personal knowledge of
the disturbance at the Falmouth House except
that one night received card with a name
on 1T purportlng to be the name of N. j. Miller;
didn't hear or see any disturbance below as
live IN part of the house where l should not
hear it.
No crOss-examinatiOn. .-
Dduts-This, may it please your Honor, COM
plees the evidence upon the part of the libel
liant, excepting rsbuttpe testimony which
contradicts defendants answer, which sup
pose we shall be allowed to put in.
Court-Undoubte1ly
Dayis-We have not called Mrs. Miller. as
her testimony will be mainly upon facts touch
ing the answer which will be put in, rather
than the libel. Having put in our evidence
with regard to the libel, we reserve her testi-
mony and such other as may be in rebuttal OF
the answer. With this explanation we rest
the case here for the present.
Bdker-Let US see that we do not get into
snarl. My brother says they may offer evil
dence rebutting the dnsaoer. If he means this
piece of paper Fl ed in the case as the libel
lees answer. that l understand, is only a
pleading. The idea that he may rebut plead
ing by evidence is a new view.
Court understand Judge Davis to mean
by answer the evidence you may put in in
support of that plea.
Baker-That was not the statement Wheth-
er it was carelessly made or iDgeniously made
is what L wish TO know. l understand the
rule, and If we understand it alike it is all
well. do not consent to leave the door open
for evidence which is not in rebuttal of testi-
mony which shall put in.
CoWt-My understandings tnis:- far as
the answermerey traverses the allegations of
the libel 1t is not open to rebntta because it is
mere issue on the affirmative allegations con-
tanned in the libel. But SO far as your answer
sets up new matter and does not traverse
merely what is set down ia the libel, if you
offer any evidence in support of it they are at
liberty to rebut it.
Baker-Not to rebut the answer but to rebut
the evidence.
Davis -Wsunderstand the rule alike. did
not suppose there was any necessity of guard
ing my statement in that direction.
l.. b. Bennett, Esq, made the following
OPENING STATEMENT FOR THE Defence.
May 1t please your Honor and gentlemen of the
jury:
1t is my duty to open this case. ALI the facts
upon the one side and the other are lamentable
enough 1T is not for me, gentlemen, or for
you on that account to shrink from the full per
Torrance of our several duties. 1t is for me
and my associate 60 present our side of this
case, emitting nothing that will enable you to
understand where Justice lies. Especially
should we he doing injustice to our client and
injustice to you who have right to know all
the facts in the case as the sole judges of them
IT we should undertake to spare the sensibli-
ties of any party in this extr aordinary case. II
is not my province, gentlemen, to argue this
case, but simply to state briefly and plainly the
evidence which we rely upon to make out our
defence. The first allegation which is made in
this libel, and we are to try this case upon what
is alleged on the one side and denied on the
other, is drunkenness. They set out, gentle
men, In this libel that for four years now last
past tue said Miller has been and now con-
tinues to be a common and haoitual drunkard
mas been during all that time in state of ha-
bitual lntoxication. That is their alleg alton.
We admit, gentlemen, in our answer, every.
thing that is true and deny what is false. We
admit in our answer that Nathaniel j. Miller
has been addicted to the use of Intoxicating
liquors and has been at times within this Pc
rud named in a state of intOxcatOD. We
deny that for four years last past he has beer
and now continues TO be common and habit
ual drunkard.
We shall show you, gentlemen pom this point
that N. j. Miller, although he has been addic
ted to the use of Intoxicating liquors, that the
allegation is not true in the manner and form
in which it is alleged. You have seen gentle.
men, the effort which has been made to make
ont that fact. You have heard the testimony
OF these numerous witnesses upon that point
They have summoned here the police officers
OF the city OF Portland, quite number OF the
custom house inspectors, officers of the United
states courts, the city government of Portland
ana ihe citizens of Portland, to show, gentle
men, what we had admitted in our answer
Ina' LUIS man sometimes got intoxicated. You
nave nere 'ne various instances which they
prove by these witness. So TAKING that nrooI
IN c0nnection with our admission I think Won
will be satisfied he does sometimes oct intoy;
Gated. s'' '"''A'
But, gentlemen, what is our side of This casa
must speak of our side, of what we exnect tn
prove. We shall show to you that this same
Nj. Miller since the year 1862 or up to the
time OF the death of his father in 1869, the tifIh
day of December was transacting as agent fol
his father.a large numbering business in the
city of Portland, amounting probably, in thu
aggregate, sales to 100000 per annum, ant
very same N. J. Miller has during the Who'll
of that time power of attorney from his fathe
the Hon. N. j. Miller, who died little over
year ago. who is known to you all by reputa
ton, as one of the most cautions and sagacGu
business men In the city of Portland, map
the last probably in the city who would .
willing to trust person With his money wb'
was incompetent to do business. During thu
Whole of this time this very same N. y. Mlllel
mad power of attorney to draw out of tbei
bank of deposit. any sum of money upon BIZ
check or to accept any draft; that be- did so
ha trnH 81 Ii, o.