Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-11-12
,HUDDLESTON DIVORCE.

The Opening Of tho Contest-Efort to &C.
cure Maintenance for the Wife and Chill
dren-sharp Passage Between Council
Inventory of His Proporty-A Letter
Asking His Daughter 10 60 to Buffalo,
The Case Under Advisennent
The Huddleston divorce case came up Tor
hearing, yesterday afternoon, before Judge
Simons, on an order to show cause why the de-
fendant should not contribute reasonable
ann toward. the maintenance of his wife and
children during tho tendency OF tho action.
Contrary to expectations, tho proceedings were
characterized BY more verve than anticipated,
enlivened as they were by a metaphorical spar
ring match between counsel, who crossed
swords twice, and one or two parties and coun.
ter thrusts between the defendant and counsel
for the plaintiff.
In directing the courts attention to the ALE
cations in the complaint, Mr.. Pierce. counsel
for the plaintiff, took occasion to employ the
word thrash" in connection with the defend
ants alleged treatment of his wife. Upon
hearing the term Mr.. Huddleston became in
diguant and called attention to the faot that
there was no such allegation In the complaint.
Mr.. Pierce turned in tho direction OF the de-
PENDANT and made the remark that he had tried
to shield him as much a. possible, IN all
things sppertaining TO the action, whereupon
Mr.. Huddleston became flushed and exclaimed
that the assertion was false. scene being
avoided by tho Interpolation Of the court.
In commencing his remarks Mr.. Lorenzo
Allis. counsel for the defendant. called atten-
ton to q return to the order which was read
further on in the proceedings: Counsel then
adverted to the allegations of the complaint,
first abiding to the charge Of cruel and in
human treatment, which he said was not
specific enough to answer tho requirements of
law. It was not principle Of law to recog-
nizs an allegation of such an indefinite nature.
It must be shown that the treatment was such
as to put the plaintiff in imminent danger,
and It was grave question as to whether or
not the allegations were strong enough to enter
into complaint for divorce.
The plaintiff had not been able to name .
single instance of cruelty or neglect from 1871
to 1876. In August, 1876, the first allegation
of cruelty is specified, and more than one year
and half elapsed before they were able to find
another instance. During nine years of mar.
ried life they had been able to cite only two
instances. Another popularity of the case
was the attempt to lug in the defendants
daughter, of full age, and another wife, who
was entirely foreign to the action, tho only
possible motive for her appearance being to in
auenoe public sentiment in behalf of the plain
tiff.
In referring to the allegation of intemper-
ance, counsel referred the court to the appear
ance of the defendant. Counsel would chal-
lenge the bar of Ramsey county to bring per
son whose appearance presented such absolute
freedom from excuses of any kind as present.
ed by Mr.. Huddleston. If Mr.. Huddleston
had been incorporate, how was it that being
~ years of age he had preserved himself to
look like man Of So? All one had to do was
TO look at him to see how utterly unfounded
the allegation became. Counsel then alluded
action was commenced. and the circumstances
thereto.
Reference was then made to the order, and
counsel remarked that the plaintiff had $4,000
in money due her from brother. A plea " as
then made for the custody of the children,
which counsel said belonged to the father If no
overwhelming reasons were shown to the con-
trary. Authorities were produced on this
point, the principal citation being from Tyler's
rules on infancy.
MR.. HuDDLEsroN's PROPERTY.
The return to the order was then read, which
merely contained an exhibit of the defend
ants property, Of which the following is a
complete synopsis:
Homestead, No. 254 Franklin street, valued
at 90, 900; parcel of land and frame house,
twenty feet front on the north side Of Third
street between Washington and Market Streets,
yielding an income of $40 per month, and vel
ued at $4,000; lot and small house corner of
Wabashaw and College auenue. frontage of
month, valued at $4,000; 800 acres of land in
Stevens county on which $3.50 in taxes are un.
paid, worth 81, 500; GAO acres of prairie land in
Dakota Territory, no income. worth $1,000;
seven lots in Hastings, worth $40; $4,000
loaned producing an income of 1924 per an
NUN; $500 in money; 81 600 in household fur
nitdre. and $500 in office fixtures.
The ruturn also alleged that the defendants
income from the practice of his profession
would not exceed $50 per month and that his
annual income was not more than 81 600, of
which large share went for collateral ex-
penses. The return concluded by directing
attention to the 81 400 claimed to be coming
to the plaintiff, and asked that her prayer for
maintenance be denied and that the minor
children be given to the custody of the plain
tiff, who alleged that he was at all times ready
to take them home and provide for them.
Mr.. Allis cited moro authorities bearing upon
a fathers right to the custody of his children,
stating that the defendant waa ready to re-
oeive them competent to provide for them, and
should not be compelled to spend every dollar
Of his income by keeping them at hotel.
REVIEWING THE CHARGES.
In reply Mr.. Pierce called attention to the
allegations. particularizing on the charges Of
The ''ale scene," tho chamber scene where it is
alleged plaintiff was pulled out of bed, and to
where he is said to have pulled her hair and
choked her. Counsel said that if the above
were not enough to constitute cause of action
the courts had better be abolished.
The affidavit of Miss Minnie Huddleston was
read, in which she substantiated the charges of
the complaint. Counsel said that there was
no design to contradict the statement of prop
erty owned by the defendant. but that the
most disingenious thi ng in the reply to the or
der was the statement that plaintiff owned
400. Counsel said that the money had been
loaned to her brother, and that not dollar of
it could be collected. as the debtor was insol-
vent.
A number Of authorities were cited, and
counsel asked where the plaintiff should go if
not to hotel. There were five of them in all
and they paid S25 per week board. which did
not include the necessary incidentals. A dis
position had also been made to drive the prin.
oipal witness away from the State.
PROPOSAL TO SEND TIE DAUGHTER TO BUFFALO.
Counsel referred to the defendants daughter,
who had been the constant companion of the
plaintiff for nine years, and whom her father
had endeavored to induce to leave for Buffalo.
Mr.. Pierce read letter from Mr.. Huddleston
to his daugter, In which he advised her to visit
her grandmother at Buffalo, The letter COM
menced, dear, dear, Minnie" and read a. fol-
lows:
II am anxious for your good that you should
get ready and visit your grandmother, Mrs.
Lyman Dunbar, of Buffalo, who has been ex-
peoting you for month. She is of your own
blood, and your own dear mother is there too.
How wish I could have been laid beside her.
never dreamed of this trouble.
do not desire to get your testimony out of
the way" The balance of the letter is to the
effect that her testimony may be taken if ne
eessary, and that hotel is not the proper place
for her to remain, that the step-mother 10 bet.
ter off alone and that after reasonable time
the writer would not pay her board bill.
Mr.. Allis arose and explained that the letter
had been writ en- at his suggestion. and that if
any blame attached it should be laid to him.