The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-01-20
MRS. MfLLER,S yICTORY.
Jury fmphnsizing the Public Contempt OF
Double-DeaIiup Phys,cian.

The dramatic incident OF Thursday in the
trial Of the divorce suit Of Oswald Miller az inst
his young wife, Marg ret Miller, In the Brook
I'm city Cuurt,was when DIR. Henry McManus of
~ WNckoh street, formerly sanitary Inspector,
testlhed that tho allegations of adultery impli-
eating him were true and that his previous am
ddvlt tnat Mrs. Miller was chaste was false.
This led TO All increased throng yesterday. Me-
Minus's commitment for perjury was regarded
with Sc isflction, and the sympathy or the
throng WIS evidently with the young wife. The
husband, a tinsmith. Is the son OF a wealthy
manufacturer. Margaret Miller Ia not pretty,
but Is pleasant faced. She IL OF medium height,
with blue eyes, heavy 1axen hair. and In dress
she is modest and tasteful. Yestei day her APP
pearance WIS improved by n lieht blue silk scarf
about her neck. she T. Of German uarentige.
aud Is an oruhan. several lady friends kept
seats ty her In court. II Ter husband h the same
hair and eyes; he Is slim. his features are
rinched. his forehead low, anu nis counter ince
uniutellgent.
1he counsel occupied most Of the time yes
teriay In summing uD. The girls counsel. Mr..
j. W,rnbers, detailed the defence Of conspirac,,
ler's father had said that he would give $1,000
to nave his son relieved OF his wife. Inc father,
too. had sent is workmen TO dog the giri's
Steps; mad put detec ives at watch on her house,
apd b ID advanced the pl ,lniin money TO pay
her alilnony. he object Of the conspiracy was
mat the son should marry the Widow Engel.
frederiSa Miller, cousin OF the plaintiff,
aud Of no KIN to tho defendant, hid
testified int she seut wish Mrs. Miller
on All VI tue nign,s specified In tue accus .tions,
and that Or. Mem nus was not there. She was
Of TOO tender age for the f,tner of Miller TO
tribe. Inc counsel thought tn At It was evident
taat money bad been used - set testimony
asanst the GIL. Dr. VI .'ianIs had confess d to
ANYTHING he sad7 1t was significant fact th
the father never permitted Oswald Miller to 90
man went WITH him. IL W evident IN { he
knew the wife's innocence. ami tn t he feared
tina, there would BE- reconciliation. 1t was In
evidence, too, that on one occasion when the
husband met his wife to pay her alimony 10
RECEIVED her kiss.
Mr.. Mcclure. Il intin's counsel. reviewed the
testimony. which be claimed established the
aileg tipn- In their COMPLIANT that the defend
All. had CON mitted adultery with Or. Henry
Mch nus at az fiatbusn avenue and Il other
times, ~ Apr May, and June; also. with
Alfred Horton. livery -taole keeper, In she same
months; ana a. IL Nevins street WITH the same
person. the suppem utai COMPLIANT also sc-
cuses the deiendnnt q, adultery WITH Or. Nc.
Mauus, AZ iid Atlantic ay nue.. on Oct. IL, 1870 ;
| Nov. w. 1876: Nov. 10 and Nov. -. Ii was enough
| 10 rest tue Plaintiffs case on the testimony OF
| tine day before. given by DR. McNianus wherein
lie denied the truth Of his aid wit he had made
before. to the effect IA Il Mrs. Miller WAS chast-
anu admitted the truth OF the allegation. The
detective VINO ha testified ia 1 ho h al seen Dr..
AcMlnus eu;er the house IN the eve ming aud
NOT come Out until tue It morning. II also
followed them In their ranules, and described
their lover iiho conduct. Without the pby-
siciaus confession, lie thought there was
enough To corvict the woman.
Judge NJ, Cue. IN n eng b, charge. clearly In
dicated his disbelief If the platntins charge.
lie spoke severely Of Dr. McManus. whom he
committed the day before for perjury, when he
denied the truth OF tne anil WI to the girl 5
chastity, M swore to bis iatnacy win heF.
lie stid that ne could not conceive Of m ~ who
stands IN more q. spicatle light. lie would
not ask the JIiN 10 believe hun under any CIR
cuulstauces. No jury would To Justled IN be-
heNiug him. lie must have It'd tue truth at
one tine or the otner; but VINO Was theGe VINO
would dare say when was the truth. II his tes-
timOny VAS true. then McManus showed him
sell 10 be miserable creature, violating the 10
lgitons OF his Profession and his obligations To
himself, In visiting TN, defendant As her neal
i adviser Tor immoral ends. No jury would he
Justified Ia conNic ing woman on the test
uiuuy VI am such miserable man. II was very
easy Tor "A inau to swear away a woman's CHAR
acter but II the appearances admitted OF Two
differences, the defendent should have the bene-
~ Of the doubt.
lhe jury were absent three-Quarters OF an
hour and when they returned tue COURT room
was nii"d TO oVern wing with spectators. Meth
er husband nor wife we're IN attendance. The
foreman SAID: I'VE md Mrs. Maggie Miller not
guilty" Ine wiie's counsel leaped iron his sc
ia a paroxysm ~ JOY. While the sympathy "
the tnroug mad tufued to the defendant after
TIE dissr lceiUl exhibition made ~ DIR. Me-
hlnus, there were lev who supposed tue Try
tni thn-e uf ne ual detectives. Inc jItors
rc7puNde4 - tne articles in 1 ~ med ISSUES,
as" CAM ma TIE negative 10 the a .tstlous as ~
whether Tie DESCENDANT mad cOmnltte,. td 4iiery
Win br. IitnlN sc JANUS, GA any VI tho days
mentioned IA tue compliant. Inc allegations
were Omitted IA tile case Presented to tue Try.
lie jar. Dn ociu- pooled sustained err yur-
el-Nf ana Arf Gee Dl-cnaTEcI IA TIE u4I4st VI
- lha.sH va the court fuou.
"" ia A.tlcr "a tll LOW DO forced to take hta
vie uAe@ = n', bed anu bo-rd, Or 10 pay Les ~
a We. il aIlIlDfy.