The New York herald., 1876-11-18
THE COURTS.
The Davis Divorce Case and the
Chickasaw Marriage.
THE PLAINTIFFS ACCOUNT OF THE ceremony.
Trial and Conviction of
James Mcclure.
ONE OF THOSE MIXED UP MORTGAGE CASES.


There was quite large crowd in the Court OF Com
mon Pleas, Special Term, yesterday. attracted thher
by ths knowledge that tho divorce Of Mary A.
Davis against Samuel C H. DAVIS would again be under
consideration and that discussion would be continued
over the question whether not the alleged
sf Mrs. Davis with J. II. Taylor In the Chickasaw
Nation In 1869 was legal marriage The defendant
present, the plaintiff, who Is slight little
Eoman not by any meaps what may be called pretty,
though rather attractive in her manner. She
lrtirea in a purple silk dress, aud gold chain
about neck aud gold at her throat, She and
Mrs. White, OF Boston. were the only two witnesses
placed the stand ifher counsel M f. ID. Mccarthy,
be excepted, who took the witness chair to to
the signature 10 paper he desired put in evidence.
As witness, when examined by her own counsel,
Mrs. Davis proved as amabe as = lamb. answering all
questions without tho slightest hesitation; but when
Mr. McKeon, the opposing counsel proceeded TO cross
examine her she showed quito another phase OF her
character One would have thought by the way she
answered him that wager had been made between
the as to which could be the sharpcst-,hc In
questioning, tho other parrying the question:
Her story Of her alleged marriage with J. N. Taylor
was strange one. II was in substance that she and
her sister, about tho 11h OF October 1863, rode
lway from Bonham, Texas, in buggy. and that they
crossed the river the Chickasaw Nations rcserva
lion, having met Taylor horseback at the river sido
before they crossed. and who went over with them.
She told how they rode In the woods ''it may have
been twenty miles," there being road, and how
finally they TO log cabin, where she and Taylor
went through what she considers was "ceroinony,'
matter be had from the two following questions
put to her by her counsel ana her answcrs:-
"Did you intend TO become the wife OF }. n. Taylor
tther before or after that ceremony"
Il did not"
Of j. NJ Taylor nj that timeyn
81 think have.n
The question was, What were his intentions ,"
but II was ruled out by the Court She testified that
the man who performed the ceremony was half
breed who stated that he was not an ordained minis
ter that he her certificate that she and Tay
Tor married under assumed names and that they
never lived together as man and wife On cross-ex-
Innation she stated that she through
The ceremony that her sister wanted her TO marry
Taylor 'within Two years so that, in case she died,
She could taxc caro- Of her chile Mr McKcon put tho
Iow ing questions 10 her and received curt
1wcrs:-
'sDid the person who performed the ceremony de.
clare you aud wife y
81 could not swear that he did not"
''Could you swear that hc dldy"
al have answered you"
.'What ,liae was II when the ceremony took placer,
'.They had timepece there"
Al this point Mr. McKeon asked her what time she
slcit." when Mr. Mccarthy asked Left wherc-the log
eabnf" Mr.. Mckcon turned about and exclaimed
rather tartly. NO. SIR; I'm going to take hor from
Bonham 10 the Indian Territory and back again."
Like Mrs. Fezzwig, tho court ROOM at this remark,
After eicting tho fact that she had TO this
ry In May. 1873. and had returned TO Texas alter
twentyiour hours stay IN the city, being unable to
lind her husband whose athcr told her that he would
not the city while she was in It. and having
means to live here, Mr. McKeon brought the cross
examination 10 a close 1t may DO said that during
the OF he drew the Tact that she
this city November 1875. and stayed here threc
monsus putting up nrst ut the Southern HOTEL and
ntlerward going to The house OF OF Mr. Rand, former
partner OF husband During all that time, however
She stated she could not find her husband.
The witness, Mrs. White. who succeeded Mrs Davis
on the witness stand. was large porty woman, who
wore heavy suit OF gray cloth. She. answered
every put to her IN sententous sort Of way
that was meant to be impressive as well US dgnincd
She Kept boarding house IN Ninth street and hotel
1t Ccnlrevle, n. j., where Mr and Mrs Davis had
boarded. fhc plaintiffs counsel asked her as 10 tho
conduct OF Mrs DAVIS while IN her houses, and she
that her department ladyhkc, but
she gave Mr. Davis regular overhauing Tor his III
treatment of his wife. said that she had heard
rows between them and described what she saw
entering their rooms-iac's which have already been
twsen and Mr.. McKeon:-
Your namc is Mrs Whitey"
THAT is my name"
''wnat was your name before your name was Mrs.
Whites"
'.My name was Mrs Gregg"
.Mr Gregg is dead thenY'
"Oh. no; he IS not dead, that know or"
'Whefe is he nowg"
al really couldn't say"
"rhen you were divorced from him ?"
al was"
.lu what court ?"
''ln the Court OF General Sessions" !"
Thus answer created tremendous outburst Of
the following
''wnat the namo OF the Judgeg'
Judge Hogan"
The witness gave her answers in q nouchalant sort
81 manner, as though she know she thoroughly
utdt AS to what she was talking about and that her
knowledge OF her past history rested TOO solid a
foundation to be easily shaken by nero lawyer She
testified hat her nrst husbands Ross who.
wncn at Haliiax, was gathered to his fathers, and
tina, she had daughter who mad been married to a
man named Fenton that they had been separated by
divorce, and that che had gone to Cuba Rot mar
ried again. " And having ended her testimony, Mrs.
White stepped down from the stand with the air OF =
woman who had done her duty nobly, regardless OF
consequences.
Mr. Mccarthy then at great length addressed tho
Court the SUBJECT OF the legaly of the ceremony
that had been performed the og cabin the chicka-
saw Nation, IN which J. Taylor snd Mrs. DAVIS
The principal actors lie contendcd that IL was IN
valid, because tho chckasaw Nation could have no law
that was binding on nonresident whites. The two
persons according the federal law we're trcspassers
not only IN this nation, but could not make any
tract there which the law would enforce,
whether OF marriage or trade nor could anv rerident
In mo nation make valid contract with them. Tho
Indian law could not give them relief, because II had
no jurisdiction nor could the federal law. because
they had acted IN contraventon OF the law when they
went into the nation. The law could not declare law
fu what 4 was unlawful to do. Mr.. Mccarthy at
1855 and ls66 between the Chickasaw Nation
and The United states and
sited numerous authorities TO show toe barrier that
he law placed between Nonresident whites and the
indians, the law OF divorce among the Indians and
vhat constituted q marriage among them Ne
ended that taylor and Mrs Davis 10 bc legally
he'd, even according 10 the federal law that regulates
ne lorm VI marrusc III the CnlCkasaW nation. tney
jhoud have been married by Judge or ordained
preacher OF the Gospel" which they not
Mr.. hckeon, the hour being late, reply simply SUBJ
mtted to the Judge the list OF authorities which he
T. TO base his opposition 10 the position taken by Mr.
Mccarthy, and Will, Monday, begin his argument.
The case IL may be said IN conclusion from novel
points involved as to the legality OF marriage
tracied by nonresident whites IN the Cnickssaw
lion. attracting much attention among The lawyers
To Mrs. Davis the decision Is full OF import As Judge
Van Brunt remarked, in reply 10 remark OF one OF
sbe counsel III decide ,ha, the marriage with Taylor
valid that is the end OF this cascn On the other
hand, " the decision should be that IL was invalid
Mrs Davis has . rghtiul claim Mr. DAVIS his
sgAl w,ie
A LESSON TO ROWDIES.
On the night OF the Gath OF Juno ast gang OF
laf dozen young rowdies amused itself in disturbing
homeless vagrants and others who sleeping