The sun., 1879-01-30
CORA PEARLS HUSBAND.
EXPLANATIONS by COUNSEL IN THE
COLE DIGORCE CISE
Evidence aud Arguments Finished, aud the
Question Of the Defendants second Legal
WIdowhood Lef In Mr. Hnmersley's Hands.


Quesuon Of the Defendants second Legal
Widowhood Left In MIR. Hhmersley's Hands.
The case Of Cole VS.. Cole, the party Of the
last part being tho Cora Pearl Hustled Of his
tory. WIS summed up by the lawyers of both
sides before the referee. Andrew S. Hamersley
Jr., yesterday Lawyer Hoyt spoke for the at
tractive defendant. and occupied two hours.
LAWYER Cooke took one hour to recall to the
momory Of the referee tho case Of the plaintiff
The summing up was done In Mr.. Hamcrs-
leys Office at Rendc street and Broadway. Mr.
Colin Cole. the husband and plaintiff. was pres
ent. n solid and norid man with youth and
pleasant features to recommend him. Mrs
Cole the wife and defendant. was also present.
young person OF perfect figure. clad in grace
full and fashionable black. with long black
gloves on her hands. ingling silver bangles on
her shapcly wrists an ample tie Of snowy lawn
under her white chin. and q heavy gold cross
which rose and fell upon bosom that was not
unfrcqucntly agtated. The referee. Mr.. Ham
ersley. sat ut the end Of long table. his scri-
Gus young face emphasized by pair Of gold
Eyeglasses. At his right. bent over the table.
sat lawyer Cooke. with sharp. incislvc nose,
straight electrified hair. and shrewd eye. At
his left stood lawyer Hoyt. careless in manner.
speech and dress ready to begin. Mrs. Cole
sat near him. and Mr.. Cole sat near her.
Lawyer Hoy. eXhibitng rs he proceeded the
manifold difficulties Of connecting manuscript
reading with an enthusiastic oratoricnl deport-
ment. opened for his client. who smiled and
wspt and moved herself constantly into now
positions of grace MS he went on. He sad that
thcre was no proof Of the guilt OF Mrs. Cole. the
defendant and John, Hincklcy the correspond
ent in the case. Hinrkley's testimony was
such ~ TO show that he WIS wholly ignorant Of
the matter which he alleged. and on that ground
counsel moved to dismiss the cnsn. But in the
event of the referee not being convinced OF the
wisdom Of Il dsmissing the case. counsel would
take the trouble to point out that Hinckley was
not able to mention the number of the house in
Thirty. seventh strrcrt in which he said thut he
had committed % crminn act with the innocent
woman. tho defendant He knew not whether
the part OF Thirty-scventh street in which the
house stool was east or west. and the reason
not he alleged had never been committed.
Was 1t likely that this young woman,
three. days after her marriage, should
made TO her husband and to her God? No. the
witness, the CORRESPONDENT. had not the appear
ance Of truthiuiness. His very physiogDoniy
was ot sort 10 rep"l and disgust Mrs. Roy
nolds was another witness brought by the plain
tn. Sh" had h"en companion of the defend
ant. SO she said. TO- the different hotels where
the latter had met Hinckley. The character "
this witness also was had. She hal cndeaNOrpd,
rs was ahundanty proved in her lettcrs to Mrs
Cole, 10 aienat" tho affections Of the young wife
from her husband. She signed herself true
friend but she occupied toward the defendant
/ tn" position of spider AMI sh" gained h"r
conldencc only to b.iray. Another witness had
been Josephine Lutonr. She had bron. so she
said. an Inmate Of the house in which ii was
had said that this house was az 102 West Thirty
seventh street. and she had seen Hinrkl"y and
] the defendant enter the house IN company. She
| had -nid that Mrs. Cole wore a hlHck and white
| rh"'k dress. trimmed with black silk. But
Was she likely TO walk IN the fear Of the law
| when II came 10 The matter II an oathf She
only oucn in her life. How could she remember
! them NJ" -w,re th1t the woman who came TO
| that house with Hlnckley had brown eyes and
| was the drirnllut But the driendnnt has not
! brown eyes. How could ono who could not toll
! th" color ot womnns owes when That woman
was ior hours together sitting clos" IN front Of
! her dos 'rihc - accurately dress thar She had
! seen only Tor minute nnd remember IN very
| Case was another witness for the plaintiff lie
| was a defective. II" had declared that he had
! nevsr seen Mrs Reyno'ds in his lie nnI Nrs
! Reynolds had sworn that they hnd been ac-
! quaintHi for year. All these Witnesses were
! Interested hut the law insisted that no divorce
! g,slninresi'Hl Witnesses. On the other hnnd
| Mrs. Brown. keeper OF the house in Thirty
seventh street had declared that no such person
/ ns Josephine Lntour had ever lived there. This
| doubtless was the fact II IL was not. why
! hHt not the counsel on the other side brought
! led. ~ for the black and white check dress
/ torn"lu wl"r grundmoturrO Of hrlrf'uduut
/ hui testified ti5t it WAS rlpped up anl In Uvl.
/ Itrk on tho might in Qu 'Stiou- Aprll II. But
/ .ou,"dug thar tner" had been adultery. the de-
| i"ndani'S lnwy"r claimed TINT inrre had been
/ also condonutlon. When. worried hv the at.
/ trmpts Of her husband To divorce and cast her
/ ur1n the world, Nrs. Cole hnI fallen il and lny
! at III" point Of death in Hyde Park. the plant Il
! hhd visited her. and condoGrm"ui had been
there Effected. The testimony " Cnse the de.
/ t.'tiv". 70 the contrary WAS absurd. He said
/ { 'i" was never our n hi. eye during tile three
/ days 'hnt he WIS at Hyde Park His over vigil.
/ an eye followed tho wanderings Of the defend.
! an. aud stuck To him with lcech-hke ~.
ntc.ty. And this Notwithstanding THAI. on the
hr-t night OF his arrival IN Hyd" Park. Case Is
m ihe e9rroom from . until drinking rum
/ and wh.-Scy. and tausyand itt"rs. II hui been
/ admitted that Cole hut visited his wife in her
I room. THIS man. with his red checks and hi-
3 ful habit. admitted that hr was W th his wife
dgrstood t.at no condonartun occurred.
/ LAWYER 'ok" followed tl"'ounsel for ihe do
| tendnnt. He called attention 90 the tact that
the lawyer on the other side Vitunernted
| ihr witnesses on the Plaintiffs side Case h.
| hrd drnominhted n s'li-convlcted perlurer hui
! ~ hl- own client he had said that her adultery
| was an otrnrn which even the most eXnrtinl
! husband should consider trivial" " or nil IN,
only one who amounted 10 anything; but sh'
hnd detected herself IN several important or.
oowhus. should apply - her. Counsel wa,
| lrnuitu IN spcuking ~ this witness. He de
which should lend her 90 declare that there has
been condemnation. Case had been very care
iu - watch this old woman, who. he under
stood. was harpy; and II WAS no
true that be had remained in the bar
room nr,nkinG az une when i WE
b.rtona r6e soIe n,rnos I'm r ,bo %rinGT !,
going 10 Hyde Park had heen 20 administer I,
the dying moments Of this miseraby RUNE,
woman. What motive had tho plaintiff In tr,
Tor a dlV1rc" from his Young wife within thre'
DAYS after their mnrrngef And what motive
hnd Dee to 40 ont 10 s"e her n she lay sirk--t,
sre her who, the third day after her marriRg,
toH KIND and loving husband. had committr,
alut"ry with her oli lover John HIncNlry-
except thut hn had "A lingering sympathy for tn,
Wl'krd woman whom he once called wife
As No plaintiffs counsel spid that the de
f"ndnnt srll"d and looked qui2iz 'al. and IN,
p.Wuuu was flushed and grave. Lawyer Cook,
hr-g'd 10 caution the rHtrrre against hniug To-,
uVuy or Ireluii'ed by the beauty or charms o
~" defendant; and with that the trial con
aided, and IN" ease pussrd, with the evidence
mo Mr. llam'rsley's hands, 10 be By him II
due time decided.