The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1874-06-01

trate or a clergyman was not absolutely
necessary. The plaintiff declared that she
still hesitated, as she was only half satisfied
with this dropping into law But Brink
lev importuned her repeatedly to give her
consent and becoming convinced of his
sincerity, she reluctantly assented.
The beginning Of marital relations was
fixed for june IL, 1864, for the succeeding
Tuesday Mrs. Bemes, the landlady, was
accordingly requested to prepare apart
ments suitable for married couple. Mrs.
Bemes took excellent care that Brinkley
should be consulted on the question, and
with his assurance that they should be
paid for they were so prepared. Brinkley
promised to bring with him a wedding
ring in accordance with the custom usual
ly adopted at marriage ceremonies. A
verbal agreement was then entered as be-
tween man and wife, and the marriage
was consummated. But just then Mrs.
Brinkley became dissatisfied and deter
mined to get a further acknowledgement
of the validity of her marriage contract
from the defendant. She wanted him to
take most solemn oath that he under
stood it to be a marriage, and with much
solemnity he replied that as he hoped to
meet his mother in heaven he so regarded
the agreement. Thus assured with a
solemn oath her peace of mind was restor-
ed, and she did not doubt then that the
marriage was valid one. The ring he
had promised to give her he had not yet
purchased, so in its stead he gave her a
small gold cross which he said had belong.
ed to his mother. The next day he bought
the promised ring and placed it on hel
finger.
Miss Charles swears most positively
that all the incidents here narrated tool
place, and further that she did not for &
moment suppose that the validity of the
marriage would be questioned or denied
On this question of the marriage and its
subsequent acknowledgement by the de
fendant the plaintiff produces a cloud o.
witnesses to prove that they always consid
ed it a marriage. 1t was also sworn tt
that plaintiff and defendant were introduc
ed to a number of persons as man anC
wife,
But the defendant likewise produces &
number of witnesses who testify to an en-
tirely different knowledge. The father o.
the defendant steps in here and makes ;
remarkable statement of an interview
which he had with the plaintiff, wherein
she reproached him for being so hard OF
his son, who she said was doing publicl,
what other people were doing quietly ant
on the sly. She advocated free love doc.
trines, and when told that she would dc
better to go off to some quiet spot and ge
, married, she boldly asserted she would
not marry any man alive. In fact she dix
not believe in the popular idea of a mar
| -. 81, SAA ,,nl,na1 90 tho Ia
lief that the institution of marriage as un
derstood and practised by the world wa
entirely wrong. The tendency was to en-
slave woman and treat her as an inferior
and to this condition of things she would
, never submit. Her views were more lib
eral. She said that she was free to do a
, she pleased, and she would snap her fin
gers at the opinion Of the public. He
ideas Of marriage were that man shoult
live with a woman as long as either pleas
ed, and when they wanted TO separate the
could do so at their pleasure. The de
PENDANT claims that his friends in Mem
phis never entertaided the belief he an,
she were married.
The plaintiff, however, produced
chain Of events by which she endeavored t
prove that their marriage was known t
the public at large. She produced mum
Der Of letters directed to Mrs. Ii. L
|, Brinckley" The domestic career of tn
two after their union is then detailed
They first removed to a suite Of rooms at
, boarding house in Fifteenth street, unde
the name of Mr.. and Mrs Lawson, the dc
: PENDANTS middle name. They remained a
, this place some time, and the plaintiff wa
always introduced as the wife of the de
! PENDANT, and was thus acknowledged at a
: times while at that boarding house The
subsequently removed to the st. Jane
Hotel, registering as above. A number {
Brinkley's friends visited them here, an
the plaintiff was always introduced as HI
, wife, The defendant then proposed tri
. to the South and West, through whic
they travelled. They still retained tn
name Of Lawson, and she was everywheI
o introduced as the wife Of the defendan
In New Orleans they resided for som
: time under the name of Mr. and MIR
! Brinkley, Notwithstanding the fact that /
q was known there. But the first interrul
: ton of this acknowledgment on the part
: Brinkley was in the fall of 1866, whe
. they returned to New York and put up
= the Albemarle Hotel, The defendal
= said that it would not do for them to pl
q up there as man and wife, lest it migl
4 reach the ears Of his father with whom I'll
, clerk was acquainted He took ROOF
. next to her, where they continued to c.
y habit as man and wife, though the ia,
!. was not known in the house. They col
q tinued to roam around from one place I
9 another. And at one hotel in the city wen
i registered as Mr.. and Mrs. Brinkley
Thus matters continued until the lattt
# part of 1868. They continued to live t.
= pether rs man and wife and were ncknn1