The Republican journal., 1873-05-15

~ insulting character, no one of which was
sustained by the evidence which he offered in
defence. The document was so scandalous and
lebellous upon the character and conduct of the
llbellant, that it was offered in evidence by her,
as good ground for the divorce, even if she
had nothing else to rely upon. The paragraph
quoted from it by your correspondent is vulgar
and indecent enough to disgust any respectable
person, and it appeared at the trial that it had
no other foundation than the Dr.'s disordered
imagination. In another paragraph in the same
document the DR.. told his wife that he had had
no other intercourse with her for five years
than that of the passions. Such stuff as this
was written in reply to her letter inviting con-
Citation, showing that he not only considers
himself as having no higher destiny than the
brutes, but to haye been. in his intercourse with
his wife, solely under the influence of brutal
passions. Bad men are often exceedingly stupid.
Emerson says, that 1.-The devi is an ass"
The evidence was developed for nine days,
and the witnesses upon both sides testified to
the excellent character of the lbelant as wife,
mother, and a member of society, while the
DR.. failed to substantive single charge of mis-
conduct against his wife. On the ninth day, it
had become so apparent that there could be but
one result, that the defence was abandoned.
Your correspondent labors under a gross
misrepresentation in surprising, as he seems to,
that divorce was decreed upon the consent OF
the Deft. Mr.. Strout, the Deft's. counsel, pub
hclv abandoned the defence, it is true and made
some remarks corresponding TO those which are
published; but to these remarks the libellant's
counsel, Mr.. Gould, replied that the Defts
counsel had wisely abandoned the Defence as
every allegation in the libel bad been proved,
and no justification or excuse had been made
ont by the Dett.. and that if he imagined that
anything that he had produced in the trial
would be accepted as a vindlcation of Defts.
conduct the libeant was ready to have it SUBJ
mtted to the jury. Mr. Gould declined to ac-
cept decree of divorce by the consent of the
Dett.. and insisted upon a decision of the case
upon the evidence. either by the jury or by the
court, and suggested that the proper way was,
10 either take the verdict Of the jury, or have
default entered. and then let the evidence be
passed upon by the court. Judge Cutting re-
piled that a decree OF divorce could not be en-
tered by the consent of the Deft. and could only
he upon the evidence in the case After some
further consideration the case was withdrawn
from the jury by consent, and submitted to the
decision of the court, and the Judge being
satisfied that the allegation of cruelty and de
Sertion in the libel was proved, and that there
was no Just cause tor the desertion of the Deft
or justification of his treatment of the lbelant,
ordered decree of divorce, and that the libel
liant should have the sole care and custody of
the child that the Dett. should paw the eX-
penseS of the trial, and the sum of $3.50 for the
support of mother and child until the next term;
and that the case be continued for a hearing and
decision upon the question of permanent ali
mony and the final amount of counsel fees.
How your correspondent reached the conclu-
sion that this termination of the suit was I'M
satisfactory to the ibeant, is little difficult to
perceive. She obtained all she asked, and not
only convinced the court and the public that the
charges in her libel We're true but even salts
fed the Defs counsel of these facts. A party
TO a law suit may be generally considered as
satisfied when he convinces the court of the
justice OF his cause, and obtains judgment in
all respects in conformity with his wishes. What
then ought to be the feelings OF party who not
only does all this, but who also after trial of
nine days, in which from day to day until the
end. the defence looked more and more desper-
ate. inasmuch that the Defts. counsel deemed it
most prudent to abandon the defence in order
that further exposures of his clients miscon-
duct might be prevented, and especially the eX-
L ose OF it which he knew was sure TO be made
to the court and to the eXpectant public by the
Ibeliant's counsel in his argument to the jury
il the trial was allowed to proceed to IL verdict?
1t was well understood that the object of the
Def. IN cutting the trial short was to avoid this.