The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1871-02-03
4 SENSATION CASE IN COURT.
The Divorce Suit of Millerv. Miller
A PAINFUL DEVELOPMENT OF DO
MEsTEC HNFELECITY.

This suit which excites so much interest is
libel for divorce brought by Sarah P. Mile
against Nathaniel j. Miller, Jr. Owing to thu
social standing of the parties the court loon
was crowded with friends, acquairtances ant
strangers The case was ordered up for tria
at ten o'clock yesterday but it was an hour be
fore the counsel were ready. Judge Woodbury.
Davis and A. A. Strout, Esq appeared for the
lbt. and Joseph Baker of Augusta, james
Frank Miller and bennett & bennett of Port
land for the respondent.
The case was opened by A. A. Strout, Esq.
who recited the libel for divorce 10 which tn
libellant sets forth in substance, her marriag
to n. j. Miller Jr that since her marriage sh
has always conducted herself as chaste am
faithful wife and that she has given birth t.
two children by him. That for several year
said Miller has been guilty of drunkenness:
and for four years past has been a common
drunkard. That through these four years b,
has grossly il-treated the libellant, abused hel
with threatening language, assaulted her, and
nut her in great bodily pain and in fear of he
life That on the 81 of November 1869 said
Miller without provoeatOn threw Ter violently
on the bed and, usog profane language, chok
ed her, beat her head against the wall, and OF
divers other times has abused her. On the 1871
ofJuly 1870, said Miller, being drunk, made al
assault upon her with an open knife, anG
threatened to kill her; that he Struck her, and
that he afterwards threatened her with
hatchet; that he threw his little boy Charles OF
the floor and injured him severely and that the
libellant has consequently been compelled Il
leave home and seek protection elsewhere; tina
respondent is unfitted to have the care of th.
children having been guilty of greatly ill-treat
ing them and making use of obscene and pro
fame language in their presence. The libel al
so states that the respondent is the owner OIL
real estate in this city of great value of which
the respondent prays for share and divorce
from the bonds of matrimony, and as it is
sought from no fault of hers the libellant pray s
for dover from his estate such as is proper, and
for the custody of the children.
In answer the defense pleads the general is
sue and that he is no. guilty and makes brief
statement of which the following is the sub.
stance:
In regard to to the first count the respondent
admits having. been sdicted to the use of liquor
but denies that for four years past he has been
he further contends that his said wife Sarah p
Miller has been guilty of the same offepse be-
d ing addicted to the use OF liquor and has abet-
ted him 10 in his use OF spirits by her example
and furthermore that all such offences have
been fully condoned. Respondent denies the
ID, 81 and 4th counts and as to the 9th count,
denies the allegation and says that the libellant
did not leave him for any reason therein con-
tanned but that she left him at the instigatiOn
of one George L. Shepley who influenced her
md pdttoa6 her father ia tn nd no
her to leave his, n. j. Miller's, bed and board.
AS to the 9Th count the respondent denies the
charge of adultery and claims that lbellant
has committed adultery divers times with G.
T. Shepley, and that said adultery has been
condoned. The respondent further claims that
the libellant Is not fitted to have the custody
of the children since she has neglected them,
left them in the care of wrong persons, get in
toxicated and set them bad example by her
use of profane and obscene language thus pre-
venting her daughter from attending school
and proving her incompetency to have the
charge of the children. The respondent fur
Their claims that i'll regard to alimony, the libel
liant has added nothing to the general property
since marriage but has wasted her husbands
money on hers elf and family thereby crppliDs
his business SO that he could not carry it OF
properly.
To this replication of the respondent the IL
bellant makes complete denial, under oath.
Mr. Baker, counsel for respondent, at this
point asked the Judge if the question as to the
disposal of the children and of alimony was
not a question for the court and not for the
Jury. The Judge said it was for the court.
Mr.. A. A. Strout then opened for the plain
tiff to the following effect:
Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the Jury. The
present is but the last of long series OF ,hard-
ships to which my client through her married
life has been subjected at the hands of Nathan
iel j. Miller. She asks for divorce from the
bonds of matrimouy and when you shall hear
the story as it falls from the lips of her wit
nesses you cannot fail to come to the truth Of
the matter. And furthermore, when you
hear the testimony from the lips of the wit
nesses called by Miller himself you will know
what verdict to pronounce. Nathaniel j. Mil
F. Ter is a resident here, engaged formerly in the
. lumber business and fully known to every res
ident of the town for the past twenty years.
The libelant is the second daughter of Hon
Charles Peters, formerly of Ellsworth, now Q
New York, aud was married TO the respond
ent in Brooklyn on the 18th OF November 1855
by Rev. Mr. Spear OF that city. She was on
oil a large family of daughters and resided witt
her father in happy circumstances being tn
idol of her family. Mr.. Miller sought her ant
married her aud brought her to Portland. The
fruits of this union were two children, Charlie
p. Miller now aged 10 years aud Mary Mile
aged 6 years. The testimony will disclose t,
you that Mrs. Miller is entitled to divorce
(The counsel then referred to chap. 60 of tn
Revised Ste tutes, sections ID, 81 end 4th il
reference to the divorce law 1t is sufficien
for me to saa that believe if we prove tn
charges in the libel we entitle my client to
divorce and the Judge will so decree, and
therefore do not propose enterinS into the prin
ciples of that (the divorce) law, but will here
after give my brother the citations that rel
upon tor governing the case
H Mrs. Miller left her home after mar
riage and came to Portland. She foun'
herself a comparative stranger far ava
from her friends by whom she was beloved. |
was not long after marriage before Mr. Mile
began to develop those qualities of mind an
those habits which have since rendered hi
wite's living with him intolerable and unsafe
About the time of the birth of her first chill
he began to use cross, nnl1ind and iusultin
language towards her uHtll affairs became, q
will be shown by witnesses, unsupportablt
Mrs. Miller tried to conceal the true state G
things. During the first year of her marie
upbappiness she was all alone, the sole repos
tory OF her sufferings at his hands. Her famil
began to see the growing fleets of the intoxic;
ton that have made her husband "a sight on tn
streets of Portland. Mr.. Miller few year
ago bought the house on the corner of Sprin
and Park streets where they resided and wheI
Mrs Miller proved that she was one OF the be;
housekeepers, model wife, and careful of be
children. AS long ago as six years MIR. Mile
got into the habit of coming home drunk. iii
wife was living at home alone with him, he OF
jectiDg to the visits of her family so that sh
had only the companonship of drunken mar
We shall show you that he came home S
druak that he had to cling to the door pos
and stagger up stairs. His vile would com
forward aud speak to him saying sis this yo
JONES'? and he would reply with shut u
o. your id yop' and call her opprobious names
We shah show you, gentlemen of the jury, no,
this drunkenness went on increasing till mos
every day this man came home into tbe nre.
o ence of his wife and children in sucb a 81 atp
and with such language on his lins a
would rarely be heard in the most commo
bouse in this city. AT last she was comnejle
To complain to her father, whereupon Mile
said that if he cher tather) would not take ht
away he would reform. On this condition he
father lett her for he Did not want to break I
the family. Instead OF improving h0wev
Miller grew worse until he added actual vi
lence to threats He struck her, beat he
Knocked her head against the house, and the
when her father came to take his daughter
Of the reach of the these brutalities, he MAJ
the most abject promises of reforrmato
We snail SHOW how night after night in
drunken condition he has kept the neighbo
awake by his rawlings, and one occasion tn
he has gone to the bedside of his wife with
knife in his hand deliberating whether or n
he would kill her. We shall show that the p
lice have voluntarily offered TO assist in Sc
Ting his drunken freaks and that his ow
family have had to send him to the police st
ton to main until he was sufficiently sobe
ed to go. home. But now gentlemen we sha
show that not satisfied with bringing this w
man here and making her life desolation,
has, OF his own accord in the low groggeries
THIS city, got up reports against her which 8
forwards, under his own hand, he has show
to be foul SANDERS
10 November, 1868, his abuse eliminated
an attack on his wife, that showed to the neig
bors her neck all bruised and her dress to
on, ana Wneh her father came to take h