, 1874-02-14

his wife Christine, mud aleo the disseutin,
! opinion OF Chief-Justice Breese and Justice
| AIcIAl'iBtor and Scholficld. The facts in til,
case are fully set forth iu the majority opinion
written by lr. Justice Craig, and which is q,
! follows:
TIE MAJORITY OPINION.
Th'h m:s bill for divorce, filed by Barnum Blake
against Christine blake, in the Circnt Court Of Coo1
County. change Of venue WAS subsequently take1
10 the Superior Court.
TIE CHARGES.
The Bill charged that tie defendant committed
rdulte1y with one Thomas II. Thompson at yurious
times in Cook County. The defendant filed ar
answer, under oath, In which she denied each and
every charge Of adultery alleged In the BILL aud e1-
pressy denied that shc ever, ut any time OF place
committed adultery with Thonrson or any other
person. Tho defendant also filed a crok s.
I'LL, in which she charged the complainant
with extreme and repeated cruelty and at3uery, and
prayed for divorce. Tho complainant answered the
crcss BILL under oat denying tho charges thorcin aud
alleged That defendant guilty Of drunkenness vl-
garity, and lcwdness. In july 1872, trial Ind
before jury, Witch resulted in verdict that the de-
fcndsnt WAS not guilty of the adultery charged. no
evidence was introduced in supper: Of tic bill.
The complainant flied motion fo- new trial, which
Was ovcTrltlrd, and deCTeA signed according to tie
11ndog Of te Jury. The complainant brings the caso
to this Court bJ Ippea), and
REVERSAL
Of the decree the following grounds. FfrEt. be-
tho verdict is contrary to the e;idenec scconl
u, The Court erred in instructing tho jury.
gFlntiing new trisl on tho ground Of Of newly
discovered evidence. Fourth, tue Court erred in allow
i:E the solcilo1s' fecs to defendants solicitors.
married III 1851 in the State Of Wisconsin at the
time Of their marriage the defendant waa 16 years of
cgc, aud the complainant ~. AMI that about three
months before shcir marriage tho complainant OH
tanned divorce from former wife, the ground of
adultery. They residd in Wisconsin until la67 VIXEN
,ed up M e ss ay IN Of ss
complainant droya defendant from ls home.
MI. DIAEE's ALLEGATIONS.
They have five children, resulting with complainant
ut Winnetla, It further appears thatr II. Thompson
resided in Niunetka, the residence Of oplannnt
that s is - | marIifa q an keens
ticc of law that Wnnetka IL vi.ge sixteen miles
from Chicago. containing about thirty houses that
the Residents OF Wuuctla, most Of them do bus
Chicago, and travel 10 and from Chicago morning
and evening On the CATS. Tho evidence Of TIC co:,-
Elanant to prove adultery IS entirely c!rcumsan!iai
No direct or positive proof Of the commission OF tho
act was introduced.
THE DETECTIVE.
Tho first and n1iu testimony rolled uPoD to estal-
lish adultery that OF one Gleason. who was hired
detective residing il Chicago He was employed in
f;' os3ohsr ,sc9 and from that tine until say 1870 hs
Thompson each time she vent TO Chi
cage. During that time, he sweara 10
Twelve fourteen visits sue E.ade to Chicago, and
III company wiih Thompson the street aud in thu
Office OF Thompson 4 Osborn he sncars that be met
them at the dc1ot and followed them in their waha
tile street, followed then to the Office Of Thompson,
where the defendants WDusl sometimes remain short
ti1ne, md On other occasions as long hour,
longer. II the testimony Of this witness entirely
reliable it is barcy iio that adultery was commit
ted, but 1t Is not probable. It is to be remembered
that these meetings of tho defendant and Thompson
occurred in the day ttn1e on The street ct poulos
city at the Office Of an atto1neJ, during bnsincss
hours, where tho public were invited 20 to trans
net legal business. On the streets she never
iNftt
Was observed BY this ever watchful, Mred searcher
after crime save en- one occasion ho saw Thonraons
borc reproach, md her virtue pure the purcs
it ia astonishing that this witness, with all his yg
lance, research, aud his eyes the defendant
when size WAS ir the city, during 4 period of six
months, Cid nut discover more.
ClEpmiL1IY OF HIS TESTIMONY
But the itrrOr1it question uriscs, We're the Jury
bound to believe the testimony Of this sitncss7 He
employed by the complainant to dog and follow
the trucks OF his wife in secret manner, and learn
witness against her. Up to the lime this cause was
tried he had received $3.50, aud his account FtiI
whether the amount depended upon the effect his eyi-
lcnce should produce the jury, Is not disclosed
He was uncorruboratcd. Although others were !
llut the Office ut the ti1nee he to the inteF
icws, called 10 fusta;n corroborate l.1t
,c aud testified TO. This is Eonewlat rc:uaEEa-
,lc anu when considered in connection with the f4ct
hat ho i'll the employ Of complainant is cacu1a
q to cast suspicion upon his evidence. It is said in
Browning on the laws cf ma7iage and divorce citing
cctiTe fo- the purpose of getting up evidence though
n some few they may afford useful assistance,
s, as rule, rcry Questionable They arc most dan"
erous ngents. and the Court looka upon their cvi-
lcuce with much suspicion When i man sets up ns
iired iseosercr Of supposed denqueucies. when ths
mount Of hs ray depends upon the extent OF his en-
oy1cat. and lie extent Of his employment depends
pun lie discoveries he IS able to nakc then tie 1u
ecou1es most dangerous Instrument
OTHER TII:sESSEE.
Nhileit is true, Under the la*, Gleason conPe
eut wincss yet his crcdihiiity wsH question so1ey
be complainant is compelled to rely clone the con~
uct Of the defendant and the accoplsce At Ninetka
. establish adultery. The conduct proven at Vim
c:ka, aside from what shown by tho Testimony Of
two sElsu Of complainant, Of which we shall
peak hereafter, consisted Of frequent walks and drives
aat the defendant aud Thompson Ind together.
ometirncs they rode and walked alone other occ:
ions in company with the wifc OF Thompson. That
any improper intimacy between them, or any
ne Of con,platncnte Witnesses, Shredder, te.tifes
Sunday night, in May 1870, at II O'Clock, he saw
10 defendant in company Nv YIN Thompson %s!hg
,1np.inant that he walked past Nriglts
rove on the night in question with Mzs- Blake and
..t with the knowledge and consent Of complainant
his illustrates very finely two things first thatlt is
ot safe to place too great resneo on Tat t. cia,s OF
IL sd Ias Me4s no
10 knowledge and appreciation Of her husband.
THE BOYS.
Great reliance IL, however, placed the evidence
conplainant's two sons, one Is years old and the
her H. They testify that on certain night their
other came home at II O'Clock, Thonp- |
n with her. These boys, they eay,
ere up playing chess that the defendant and
thompson went in the library, they having heard the
tile Of bottles IN tie wine closet, spped down stairs.
lie at time, AID looked in from the hall to the
orsgy and bottle and two glasses tho table,
III tie defendant snd Thompson on the sofa in re-
ming position, she with bis head her shoulder,
ID ht with his around her waist- The story Of
toye to agree in every respect it Is however
mewhnt remarkable tha. they should be up at this
,ich boy Of II years would ordinarily tire and
mention is made Ct the whereabouts Of the SERVANTS
rec Of whom were employed ut the house at the
ne. It is, however, to he remembered that these
IS were under tlie influence and contro! Of their
q ye,y hostile towards his mother. Huxon teathea
after Mrs Blaks ei he heard the oIds5 d5 s. son e
be ashamed Of himself said be knew nothing about
, mother only What be had been told
Ano.her witness eshes to similar expressions Eade
he boy TIE fec: Of boys the age OF these being up
late hour Of the might unaecoonted fo1, t1e nau-
,poct agreeing the bitter feelings they entertained
wards their mother, the statement made by one Of
%ve3ff1 -11x+ ha $aRft r