New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-09-30
Free L0vo and WOman's Rights.
From the San Francisco Alta.

Two cases Of divorce of very unusua
and extraordinary character were som
time ago commenced in the Fourth Distric
Court, and are now ON trial before Judg,
Morrlson in Oren court. As is the case il
all divorce suits, the greatest part of thu
testimony is unfit for publications; still thu
trial attracts considerable interest The
cases are those of Truman White VS. Bertha
A. White, and Charles w. White against
the same defendant. The first case is for a
divorce, and the other il for q decree de-
claring 9 pretended marriage between
Charles w. White and Bertha A. White
null and Void. The evidence is singularly
conflicting, and briefly as follows:
Truman White testified that he was mar
ried to the defendant in Maiden, Massachu-
setts, on May IA, 1868, and left the next dav
with his wife for California And they ar.
rived here about the middle of Juno Of the
same year, and lived together az man and
wife for about ten or twelve months, when
she was tired of him and left him. 1t an
pears from the evidence that their married
lie was anything else than happy one,
their 9uarrels being frequent and violent.
The plaintiff sometimes passed the defend
ant on as his wife, and at other times INTRO
6uced her by her former name-Bertha A.
Glover. marriage certificate was also
onered as evidence of the alleged marriage,
ana other circumstances were shown in CON
hrmation Ut plaintiffs story that he and
the defendant were man and wife A letter
was also produced, written by defeh dant to
plaintiff, in which she addressed him IA her
dear husband and signed herself ..your
wife" y'"A
On the other hand, the defendant testi
Me0 mat she never was married to Truman
White, and never lived with him as his wife:
that she lived in the same town with him.
anu sometimes occupied the same room, but
she regarded him as brother OF father
rather imam IN any other light. A letter was
plaintiff to the defendant some time aftar
the parties came to California, in which he
proposes matrimOny. and does not speak of !
her as his wife. Several witnessed aIso taat;-
ned on behalf of defendant, all Of whom no.
lated conversations and statements ro;na N
show that the parties were not married. sn1
did not pretend to be. Charles w. Whit
or White NJ. 2" as he was called DURING |
the trial. was married to the defendant Is
San Francisco ON the thirtieth Of june 1850
and lived with her until White No. / made
his appearance and claimed Mrs. White "a
his lawful wife.
This brought about another separation. I
and White No. now asks that the pre- |
tended marriage between defendant and 1
himself may be declared null and void, on |
the ground that Bertha was married |
woman, and incapable of contracting with |
him. Bertha, it will be seen, is between |
two fires, and her only hope of retaining q
husband is to prove that Truman White
and herself were not married. Sleeping in
one room does not, she thinks, constitute
between them, but was merely an
exhibition of fraternal feeling. When
questioned closely on this point BY counsel,
Judge E. d. Sawyer, she replied by the fol-
lowing interrOgatory: "Can you hold up
your hand and swear that you have not
done the same :" 1t is unnecessary to say
that counsel did not answer, but the ques-
lion of Bertha caused d good deal of merri-
ment. In the face of the conflicting testi-
mony elected during the trial, it is not an
Easy e matter to determine the relation the
different parties bear to each other.