, 1874-02-14
u, TEE DISSENTING OPINION.
The following is the dissenting opinion, which
is written by Chief Justice Brcese:

c1ncuMs1asr1AL PROOF Or ADULTERY.
have examined the record and as read it, festf
oy of the most satiEactory character j: found In II
to justify divorce Tiaculo. It is true appellee
not caught fag:an.e dectu, but such circumstances
the net was done. do not suppose it il required Of
party applying for divorce to prove beyond rca-
sonabe DOUBT that aduterous intercourse WIS actually
had but such f.cts warrant that conclusion. That
appellee had violated her marriage is s2tiafacto-
r1y proved II circumstances available to prpve
anything lave no time to GO into review Of The
testimony. The saeut facts proved that Thompson
object Of apTellee's special regard md they
terms Of coteEt Intimacy, she bcstowins upon
him favors Which yirtu0l6 wife would bcsow with
the knowledge Of her husband. The familiar
intercourse with Thompson is establisllcd-such US
riding out with him repeatedly in her buggy, return
stealing to the luxe shore Late hour ot the night
the pcctense Of seoiEg tho rise; :" visiting
him time and again at his Office in Chicago mud there
found with him ulonc, lis hand in her lap. On one
occasion they were seen tngcther in the Office Of
Thompson, which had partition setting of portion
and lounge. A. bolt was heard to slide, and
presently, u looking Into the outer room,
ibs il ~1s nurea f9ana the to servants BE- To- ehFa h
on one ssbbath appellant hnyns gone there with one
Of the children, vhen on the return Of tue servants
house carefully closing tile door,
TIE soNs TESTIMONY.
Again her tto sons, one aged Is = and the other -,
their fathers absence from home, go out riding with
Thompson three four times week in the evening,
EetWtcn dnu O'Cicchs SonCs1We3 0lfc hLQHn
them CONC back 1ate as II o'clock 1t night which
they never did when appellant VAS at home. They
swore that eho came hume with Thompson ONO night
during their fathers absence about u o'clock there
,ras no light i'll tue ball. and IN the parlor; she
told Thompson to step Into the library, and she
would be down in minute; Hhe ran up
stairs when the ratt1ing of bottles r;.s heard
She coon returned ad they we're scen in tho library,
the light burning very low, bottle and two glasses
tho table and they rn-ntug on the steps, her he1d
Thomrs ous shoulder and his around her waist II
is not Strange these toys should he awake at that time Of
the night, they sitting up to watch thcir mother
End lei her In the sctsnts, no DOUBT fatig1etl with
their days wori, having gone 10 bed There ~as no
testimony worthy OF consideration, to shake tho testi
Eony Of these boys. Tbs eldest WAS then rnpil It
Eacne College, and Justly indignant at the conduct Of
his mother IN taking adrantage Of his fathers ab
Eencc.
DETECTIVES.
It is urged reason Why the evidence OF frequent
intercourse with Thompson, End visits to his Office.
aEouId not have weight with the jury thst the witness
named GLEASON was one Of " Pnke1 toms detectives
and employed for the purpose Of watching appeles's
movements and conduct.
This Court In Bennet ct al Waller ct al, 3 Ill., 81,
did not heeitate repcse confidence In the testimony
Of Webster, Pinkerton detective and were 60 in
huenced By 1t ns decree estate to BE- the property
cf defendants in error, tlcn valued at S50o,oe0t
CONCLUSION A=EISED IT.
It to me. though appellee was not caught rs
graue delieto the proof sufficiently sho"1 she on
divers OCCASIONS and ut diTess times, shown N uns'