, 1874-01-25
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
THE MCMAHON CASE.

Inc uot1on 1or new trial In the case OF Bar
bara hlcMahon against Patrick T. lfcAlahon was
called up yesterday before Judge Moore. Mr.
johnson, on behalf OF Patrick, read. in support
OF the motion, three four aiIidasits Of various
parties. Among them Was ono by Francis II.
Pollard to show that Hares, whose real name is
|, apparently Theopalus n. Ayars. went to Wal
worth, Wis, to his fathers house, accompanied
by lady, whom be introduced to deponent as
Mrs. Diversey. he came again few days before
Christmas, and left two days before New Years
Day.
Sophia Ayers' affidavit shows that she was en-
p1oved at the Walkor House, and that on the
9th OF November last Hares came to that hotel
accompanied by woman whom she identified
by an excellent photograph IS Mrs. McSlahon.
While st the Walker House, Hares and Mrs. Mc-
Mahon occupied tho same room, which had only
one bed.
". B. Walker, the proprietor Of the Walker
House, corroborated the testimony Of Sophia.
He states that ''Ayars" came and represented
room ''D," deponent showing. them to the
room. Agar said his father lived at Byfoos
Prnitie, near Walworth, and that they we're going
there. The next day they started, but returned
at night, and started tho following day for Chi
cago. The register shows their names IS IT.
II. Ayars and lady, Chicago, Ill"
William Higbe, in his affidavit, swears that r.
a. AyarB, aims T. A. Hares, Was in Walworrh
ThankRgiving-Day with o woman whose nauae
was Disersey. Said Ayars, nlas Hares, was
grand larceny, and sentenced to five years in
the Penitentlary. These afidavite are all
fastened together, and attached to them By q
ribbon is an excellent likeness OF Mrs. McAfahon.
photograph is 3 likeness Of the woman who went
with Hares. The reverse of the card shows
that the picture WAS taken at the Studio OF II.
B. Doane, Deleyan, Wis, and for the benefit OF
all admirers ne will state that NEGATIVES are
preserved"
Counsel On both sides made warm and long ar
guments On behalf Of their clients. Mr. Hugh
Cunning finally ruined bis case most hope1essIy
By tedIoue and almost verbatim recitnl OF the
evidence taken on the trial The reports Of the
various States, from Maine to California, we're
also ransacked and adduced.
Judge Moore. when after two hours talk ho
had an opportunity to speaE disposed OF the
case in a few moments. The law did not favor
matters Of course. But the case had not been
tried by him, but BY jury. There Vac . large
amount Of evidence on the subject OF
Drunkenness, and much contradiction,
bnt the testimony was sufficient to
however, the evidence was not sufficient; thefse,
was no personal violence proved. On the other
subject, the Indy could not obtain divorce if
she we're in pd1-i deIic9u, There WAS enough to
show that she was very imprudent even II the
charge were not proved.
II she we're Whit she ought to be, she would
not brave public opinion in TINT way. But still
the evidence did not show that she WAS guilty OF
the act Of adultery. He would not say what he
would have decided il he had been trying the
case. But the defendants knew the
usual rule in regard to evidence
in cl1ancery-that it VAS ordinarily By deposition
and he might have had Mra. Hurea' deposition
taken in abundant time. These acts charged in
The af1idnvita we're not any more suspicious than
tho acts charged in the bill. The new evidence
so-called Was simply of the same character
charged in the original cross-bilf. The jury
were to weigh the evidence, and they did, and he
should therefore oyerrule the motion
hIr. Assay thereupon dismissed as TO the charge
OF cruelty, and 8 decree OF divorce WAS entered
for habitnal drunkenness for the space OF more
than two years. To this the defendants
counsel excepted, and prayed an appeal to the
Supreme Court, which wes granted under boad
for 81 900, sixty days being allowed in Which to
file bill Of exceptions.