Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-12-27
Mr.. Htsddleston,s AHdavit.

oftentimes for weeks, and in some instances
months, during the last three years, when
my wife end have been loving and kind to
each other and on the best of terms, If it can
be said that her desertion of my bed and re-
|fusing me my marital right, could be called
loving and kind on her part, as get forth in
my first affidavit, nor am greatly of the
criminal nature in my own estimation, and
believe will not bs thought so in others,
when fully testify and she testifes on this
matter to the court on the trial.'' tx.
After referring to his general habits about
the house the defendant says: ut was not
my wish to spread before the public the del
icacies that should be known only to man
and wife, but as marriage contemplates such
delicacies and marital rights, I, who have
been reproaohed at triaes, have been pictured
and painted to denounce me as an inhuman
brute, and herself without fault and angelic,
am obliged to relate to the court the treat
ment and provocation I have received and
been subjected to, to mitigate, If it can, my
conduct to and harsh words to her when
suffering with excitement and anger, even in
the presence of my children and others,
which I would gladly recall if I could.''
The affidavit here refers to the first publ
cation of their differences, which defendant
states his efforts to prevent were baked by
plaintiffs friends for the express purpose of
running him. The defendant refers to many
evenings passed at home reading, and to the
afidavits of the domestic, Matilda johnson,
accounts of which have previously appeared
in the GLOBE, defendant alleging that the
deponent had been tampered with. THE re-
ference at this point is too indecent for pub
licatien. After adverting to a visit they
made to Plaint1H's old home in New York
State, and the high opinion given of him
by his wife to her relatives, defendant speaks
of his affection for his children, which was
always reoiprocated. -.~
Defendant then says: AS for not living
we'll or being selfish in regard to oysters, It
is false. have sometimes come home to
lunch and brought oysters and found lunch
was over and eat some of them alone, and
any one in the house was entirely welcome
to help themselves. Mention is then made
of their domestic arrangements, in which
defendant charges his wife with being fond
of contracting bills. Defendant here refers
to the charges of cruelty, which are denied,
with the statement that he never struck his
daughter, but boxed her ears about four
years ago after she had stubbornly refused to
comply with his requests. -. .
The affidavit of Mrs. Hollinshead is then
referred to, in which defendant, alleging
that they have often drank ale and whisky
together, in which neither she nor himself
saw any harm. The affidavit closes with
reference to his love aud abiding affection
for his children. u..-
AFFIDAVIT OF THE BON.
The affidavit Of; Lyman Gent Huddleston
denies that his father was in q rage when
Mrs. WEIGH left for Buffalo, and reiterates
that Mrs. Huddleston never tried to please
her husband, and that he never called her q
''poor miserable pup" alleged to be his
favorite way of addressing her.
Deponent further says that defendant
never punished Minnie but three or four times
obedience.
The deponent denies tho allegations in the
reply of the plaintiff; states that she seemed
to begrudge what he ate, and reiteretes that
he never tasted whisky except as medicine,
characterizing the statement of Miss Mary
Hollinshead that she had smelt his breath
tainted with whisky as false.
JOHN W. WILLIS OPPOSES.
The affidavit Of John w. Willis refers to
the deposition of Matilda johnson, which
deponent took on the 22d day of November,
and which is described as having been taken
with the most scrupulous and conscientious
care. That the affidavit was carefully read
to Miss johnson, who affirmed all the state
nnents therein That the meaning of every
sentence was explained, and that she never
requested that anything be struck out. That
her statement to thu effect that he failed to
strike out any allegations in her affidavit, as
alleged to have been requested, is wholly
untrue. In effect tho affidavit claims that
deponent affirmed to every statement in her
deposition.