The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-05-20


SO II continued for fifty years. Nothing could sup
ply the lack OF that explicit contract which the
law required. Formerly, parties, under the laws
Of this State, could not testify against one an.
other In cases this description, but the law
had been changed and both parties were allowed
to come into COurt-one asserting and the other
denying that the contract had been made. There
were certain tests which an intelligent and en-.
lightened jury would always make. Was the wo-
man received as the mans wife IN his family
Was their cohabitation open or conceaeds Was
their relation disguised by false namesp
He mr.. Anthony would show that the plaintiff
was introduced 10 the defendant simply for the
purpose Of o meretricious relation, and this he
would show by the testimony Of an unlmpeachable
witness. The latter told the plaintiff that The de-
fendant was rich and could we'll provide for her,
while his (the wtnessD money was all gone. The
testimony would also show to what places she led
him and what really took place al the house OF
Mrs. Beams. 1t would show that he was not
afraid or his father and could have married whom
ne pleased. He would not defend the wrong which
the defendant committed against society by pass
ing this woman of as his wife In order to obtain
access to respectable hotels but point out how he
had suffered Tor this wrong, how he
HAD BEEN PROSECUTED BY THIS WOMAN
for ten long years. He would show that the
plaintiff herself told Judge Leet, OF Tennessee, and
others that she repudiated the very idea OF being
the wife OF the defendant. The jury, as fathers as
husbands as honorable members OF society," must
draw O line between Illicit meretricious inter.
course and lawful holy marriage.
she proclaimed herself as free-lover OF the
boldest description and even assumed the guis
OF rich widow from Louisiana at various places.
At ST. Paul, Mimi, she actually contracted mar
rage relation. This was not true, noble wife.
This was one OF the women as they were described
In Holy Writ whose house 'Is the pathway to hell
mat .. Win the 81
which Mr.. Anthem had conJured up. There was q
Mr. Clarence B. Hunt was the first witness for
the defence. a midde-slzed, sallOw-compexione
gray.eyed, brown-halred man, with shlning dia-
commission business IN Memphis; In 1855. when he
first met the plaintiff, she was grown up lady.
Mr.. Anthem with an expression Of horror)-A
grown up lady. MRS. Brinckley smiled and bowed
The witness continued that he renewed his
acquaintance with the plaintiff In New York in
Mr.. Anthon-what was her general character
for morality between 1851 and 1854
The witness said 1t was bad.
Mr.. Anthon-Do you know OF any specific acts OF
immortality (Excuded.) In what respect was
her general character for morality bad LEX.
Mr. Anthem asked a number OF questions lead.
ing, directly or indirectly, TO the question Of her
But THEY WERE ALL EXCLUDED.
Mr.. Anthem excepting to the ruling OF the Court.
question whether he himself had entertained I'm
proper relations with the plaintiff.
NJ Beach protested against S l the these questions
to disgrace and black ball the plaintin. Mr.. Anthem
gave heated reply, but the Judge said, "Tnere Is
no question before the Court. There is nothing to
talk about" which elected general litter.
The witness said he told the plaintiff that he
would introduce 60 nef sne defendant who would
well. He (witness) intimated to her at the time
that he himself had spent all his money and was
@~1S,.<~ hpvu In Snf nAnnnd tha ln(o~
ant to her In May. 1884, at luka Springs, Tor the
purpose before mentioned.
letter from Mrs. Brinckley to the witness, sup
posed to bear on the question OF her character.
was excluded by Judge Van Brunt as being en-.
tirely immaterial. This gave rise TO another tilt
between the counsel, Mr.. Anthem saying that Mr..
Beach was abusive" and Mr.. Beach declaring
that he would abuse Mr.. Anthem as long as the
ind that can bite," Mr.. Beach added, compIa-
Gently. (Laughter.) & ~
Tne witness said both parties related to him how
they had trlcked Mrs. Beams IN making her believe
that tLey were married IN order 20 be allowed
TO STAY AT HER HOUSE;
they stopped there under the name OF Lawson
she said she introduced him under that name as
her husband; in 1885 he called on MRS. Brinckley
at the st. James Hotel and there she told him her
relation to Mr.. Brtnckley had become very repug-
.she did not like him much" lat:er, and Mr..
better llaughter) witness subsequently went 70
Memphis, where he saw them next, and where
their general reputation was that OF man and mis-
tress; her general character while in Memphis was
very bad; In 1858, when they resided In the Adams
BLOCK, she sent Tor him and told him that her lie
her out, and she nad always lived In New YORK
gayly; he either must come out and acknowledge
ner as MS wife or he must give her money to go
cording to the law, she had lived long enough with
him IN New York TO be acknowledged as his wife;
q month as long az she lived; she said 500
month was nothing at ali to her, that 1t would not
be enough to pay her dressmaker's bills; she SAID
n M
wanted some Of those blocks OF buildings or his
tiaughter) she thought It would come TO a suit,
anyhow, and wanted to know what the evidence
OF the witness would be; he told her that ne
could only recite the facts she did not think that
circumstances In which II was
MORE HoN0RABLs FOR A NAN TO LIE
than to tell the truth qaughter) she said that by
allowed to testify In their own behalf, and that
even II be told the facts she would put her nand on
drop dead alter 1t sensation) he told her he did
NOT think her past life would bear ner out but she
said 'consistency Is the bugbear Of little minds"
or something Of that sort; the remark struck me
Mr.. Anthem asked the witness what she had told
other men. Mr.. Beach objected, and made long
argument against the admissbfity OF the question.
The Judge said that In this case the proof or the
marriage was sought TO be established by The fact
OF coha6ttatton, and II IL was shown that she lived
with other men why could this fact not be taken
Of the coSaDiaton Hr Beach asked i II the ee
fendant could prove that he was not married by
showing that he had also lived with disreputabe
women In houses OF tllfame. II he could not do 80
why could II be proved that she was not married
by showing that she had committed adultery after
the contract was made The Court Of Appeals had
decided shat proof even OF the fact chat the woman
was common prostitute Was not admissible
where the question OF marriage was an isAue. He
made strong appeal TO the Court TO exclude sucn
proof and begged that II His Honor had the eight
est doubt In regard 70 its admissbility give the
benefit OF the doubt to the plaintiff. The Judge,
announced that ne .F ~
WOULD ADMIT rHn EVIDENCE e a.s@
Mr.. Beach excepted. oq
The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On re-
Stunning the trial 1t hafpast one Mr.. Hunt was