The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1871-02-06

L
| toxication has been exceptional; that very Sc
| dom, except perhaps during the more fecef
/ period since this matter Oecome aSilateu, u
| lntoXicatiOn has been exceptional; ana al
| though he has been drunk quite number {
| times vet not the number of times, nor any
d | thine like the number of times, which 70
: would infer from the testimony thus far in til
| case for reasons which my brother will stat
| when he comes to argue this. So much fO
| this point
Now, tue same point the second thing, tina
! is alleged is cruelty In relation to that mat
| ter, we deny it because it is not true. We de
| ny that this man has been cruel in the lega
sense. And on testimony will satisfy you, a
We believe, that the scenes which their testi
mony has described have been grossly exag
| gerate and exaggerated for purpose.
| We shall show you that this man has neve
| done any harm whatever either to his wife o
to his children, that he has never threatened
| any injury to either of them i'll manner which
| put either OF them in any fear OF their lives O
any serious bodily injury whatever. think
gentlemen that you must have been satisfied O
that fact, already, from the evidence in tn,
| case. But they have presented their case s
thoroughly as they can, and we must pIesen
ours. We shall show you gentlemen all thes,
| things have been grossly exaggerated for th,
purpose tof Obtaining divorce.
we snail show you, grntlemen, and it alread
appears fer the evidence; we shall show vol
still farther by orr witnesses, that these scenes
which transpired which have been testified to
| that THESE things were done when he was I'M
der the influence of Intoxicating liquors.
we shall show you that SO far from being 8
| cruel man to his family, he has ALWAYS been .
Kind man and an indulgent husband aud an
indaisent father; that be has provided for his
iainiiy. Tor his wi ELS family and for his chill
dren, at some periods of his married life be.
| yond what his income would justify.
| We shall show YOU that whatever this man
has done when intoxicated, which they put in
here as acts of cruelty, were done while he was
lrritated by the libellalt herself or some mem
| bers of her family; that from the very COM
| mencement of his married life bis wife bv her
| conversation con- menced to irrtate this defend
| ant
We shall show you that her family very soon
after theyWere married commenced to interfere
and it has already interierred to some extent
n this case, between husband and wife; that
this interference was frequent already appears
in testimony, aud we shall add good deal to
1t; and we shall show you that the interference
has been of the most aggravatiug and tantaliz-
ing KIND, sufficient, it hot to justify, certainly
to be good reason for anything which he has
ever done to his wife or children. We shall
show, also, that SO far from his being to blame
himself exc usively, that the libelant herself
from the commencement of their married life
has gone along with him pari pdssu in drinking
and in intoxication. We claim, gentlemen,
that she must come into court with clean hauds
In that respect We shalt show you that from
the commencement of her married life down to
the present time she has been addicted to the
use of intoxicating liquors; that she has drank
Intoxicating liquors with her husband fire.
quently and habitually during the whole of
their married lie, in the presence of the chill
dren ard IN the presence OF other persons; that
iact sufficiently appears already; and we shall
go further, and show you beyond all sort of
question, if you are not satisfied now of that
fact. We shall show you that that woman has
been overcome by intoxicating liquors; aud if
SO, gentlemen, We say on our side that d.
o mr. fa ba ,foo ~, e
lntoxcaton. If it appears that the htellant
has been accused of the same thing that her
husband has been accused OF, and that she is
equally in fault with her husband, she is not
entitled to divorce.
We Say further, if it is true that this woman
has committed acts that have been improper,
caused by intoxication; if she has consented to
that intoxication by her example and by her
conduct and has assented to it, it is not for her
to complain if he has done little more than
she has; if the wife is in the habitual use of
intoxicating liquors herself, it is not for her to
turn around and claim that she should be d.
vOrced from her husband because be does the
same thing; and if while intoxicated he COM
mlts some acts which are not proper, some acts
OF violence, if you please, it is not for her to
complain.
L shall not undertake to enumerate the vari-
GUS acts we expect to prove; it would take too
mucn OF your time. might go over, one by
one, and state what the circumstances were
and what we expect to prove, as they have pre-
scented them to youon the other side, but it will
De unnecessary for me to take up so much of
your time.
We shall show you that this respondent had
other grounds for complaint; that they com
menced very soon after he was married; and
this is one of them: that Mrs. Miller family.
the FAMILY of the Hon. Charles Peters, from
the commencement of their housekeeping was
in the habit of coming in the summer season,
Mr.. Peters himself, with several members Of
his family, his wife and several Of his daugh-
tiers, and remaining there for considerable
portion of the summer months; that they filled
up MIller's house, put him to great expense
from $500 to $1,000 year, every year, perhans
for the last ten years. We shall show that Mr.
Mlllers income did not justify ANY such thing.
We shall show you this has been a source of
difficulty between Mr.. Miller and his wife;
that he bias complained of it; that his con-
plants have been treated with Indifference if
not with contempt; that he has fouLd himself
unable to get along.
What has made it still more offensive to him
is that whenever these parties have been visit
! ng ms house, as It appears in testimony, they
have been IN the habit of interfering with his
domestic affairs. If be undertook to correct
Que of bis children, one of his wife's sisters
would interfere. You can see how irritating
that would be.
About month after they were married Mr..
Miller said to his wife: Sarah, have made
$500 to-day. She said: am very glad, but
should like it better if my father had made it,
We shall show you that many Of these little
aet5 which have been testified to with go much
seriousness, and which they would magnify
into dangers, have been treated in referring to
them as mere jokes. We shall show you that
Mrs. Miller herself said in reference to throw
ing that cup of tea, that was a nice joke.
We shall show you that this Peters family
when they have visited Mr. Miller have sent
their se.vauts there for him to support; that
two or three times they have purchased goods
on bis account; that they have borrowed money
of him to go backward and forward, and have
bothered him about his pay.
We shall show you that this same Honora-
bic Charles Peters, the grandfather here when
Mr.. Miller's little child was down there to
Brooklyn to see his grandfather the first time,
ne charged him with milk bill; that he had to
pay for the milk furnished the boy while he
was on visit to his grandfather On the same
occasion, while the boy was playing with a
coin with his grandfather tossing it up, be acct
dentally swallowed it, and his grandfather
called upon Mr. Miller to pay the doctors bill.
We shall show you, gentemen-I don't wish
to weary you by going into detais-mafy lit
tie circumstances that go to irritate and exas
perate one, whether he is drunk or sober And
knowing what do in this case, the wonder is
that Mr.. Miller has not gone great deal fur
Their than any testimony shows he has gone in
alleged acts of cruelty.
Well, now, gentlemen, if she comes into
court here and asks for a divorce on account OF
these little transactions, why let US have both
fault with her husband in the case.
There's another source of uneasiness, may
use a stronger term. something which we find
| enrages a man. We shall show you that this
wife has been uufaithful to her husband. We
shall show you that during the last three years
she has received at her home during the day
and during the night at all times, frequently,
very frequently, almost every day, sometimes
many times day, one George E. Shepley.
And we shall show you, l think beyond ali sort
of question, what Shepley was there for. 1
will not go into de- lis of the testimony under
this head. The evidence is circumstantial of
course. That crime is always proved, almost
always proved, by circumstantal evidence
We shall expect to prove it in this case. But,
gentlemen, circumsta noes are sometimes as
satisfactory as any evidence need be. And We
shall show variety of circumstances, quite
number, which will not stop to enumerate.
We shall satisfy you, gentlemen, we have
every reason to believe, beyond all sort Of ques-
ton, of a criminal Intimacy between the COM
plaiuant here and Shepley. II we do, we claim
it perfect defence, and that she is not entitled
hands.
Nathaniel j. Miller, libellee, testifed-I was
married in Brooklyn, N. ", Nov. %, 1885,
Intoxicating liquors were used on that occa-
sion, such as wines of different kinds. don't
| recollect whether other liquors. They all par
know of any that did not, unless it was nv
wife; guess she did; l recollect. We went to
| live al Portland on Free street, at private
boarding house; there think a month or two;
| Intoxicating liquors were used there during
our stay and for use, and were used by myself
and wife, and friends who called. We boarded
next at the U. s. Hotel; were there, should
| say, three or four months; l don't recollect of
keeping liquors in our room, excent a bottle Of
CataWba brandy: we relied unOn the sunnlv of