, 1881-03-20

| OL.SI
Speakth2, all electric light, as most of the
ilsht Is produced by the burning of the car.
DON, am! The BLUSH tint is due Il, the yioiet
yapor OF carbon with its intense actiiiic rays,
no consumption Of cagbon.'' =
ANDY JOHNSON'S NIECE.
THE LADY A WITNESS IN a SUIT BROUGHT
AdAlSsf THE SHEE1FF-IUSG AILAST I'm
QtlllEs CONCERNING 1IER AGE AND HER
FoGls HUSBANDS LOVE LETTEKs AND
LOVE-MAK1SG.
New York Herald, Mareh IS.
NT. George l.. Hooper, the former proprie-
Tor OF drugstore at No. 102 Sixtttavenue,
sold his store in June last to Mr. Clarence Y,
Blselow, who for several years had been his
clerk. The latter was to pay $1,000 for the
store, and, after deducting S2,U72 which
Hooper owed him on account of salary as
clerk, gave his notes for the balance, and en-
tered into possession Of the store. Shortly
after this Sheriff Bowe, under IN execution
against Hooper in favor of some Boston
creditors, levied on the goods in the store.
Meantime Hooper had distributed among
his New York creditors the notes lie
had received from Bigeiow, which
were promptly paid as they matured.
Blgeiow, under the circumstances, did
not relish having his goods in his
store levied upon, and accordingly brought
suit against the Sheriff to recover possess
sion Of the property thus levied on. At the
trial yesterdac, before Judge Van Bruut, Of
the Court of Common Pleas, Mr.. Stephen H.
Fullerton appeared for the plaintiff and
uenry +. Knox and others for the Sheriff.
THE FEATURE OF INTEREST
IN the proceedings was placing on the witness
stand lady giving her name as Mrs. Wal
lngford. She was stylishly dressed, and
was altogether a woman of genteel ap-
pearance.
MY mother was a sister of Andrew John
son. late President of the United States the
witness answered i'll reply to aQuestion asked
by the Defendants counsel. This announce
ment of her SO immediate connection with
the late President johnson at once infused
new element in the case, which served to lift
it from the level Of dull apathy previously
characterizing the court proceedings. Not
only tile jury turned their eyes with lnQulsl-
torial sharpness upon the distinguished wit
ness+ bnt the Judge leaned forward, so as to
catch with more certainty the purport Of her
when did you become acquainted with
Mr.. lluoper:" was among the questions
I'm April, 1885," she answered.
How t!lu the acquaintance progress?"
Mr.. Hooper began
MAKING DESPERATE LOVE TO ME,
proposed to marry HE. leave his wife and
what proof hive you Of this beyond your
OWL statelncnt!"
~ letter from Mr.. Hooper,
"A letter was produced without date,
clallned to have been written by :Mr. Hooper
to the witness, and filled with til.. strongest
protestations of affection, which letter, how
ever, Mr.. Hooper, It's stated BY counsel,-ai-
though Mr.. Hooper was not called as Wit
ness, ,-cmphaticaliy denied ever having
written. In her further direct testimony
ance With Mr. Houper lie proposed putting
the store in her name, which proposition,
however, SHE refused to accept. During this
time, and for several months after. she
and private boarding-houses III this city
where she was boarding; that he called OH
her. in fact, almost daily, and that during
this period she loaned him some 5 500. She
the presence Of Mr.. Bigelow and herself and
another lady, again insisted OIL her taking
possession of the store i'll her name, and that
.lr. Bieeow did not claim at that time to be
the owner of the store. She sad That this
touk place OH the evening Of July l, lSs0, at
the store. As 10 this last statement, how
ever, it was c0nelusiyely shown that Mr. Big
Glow was not i'll the city at the tine and that |
no such conversation as that stated ever tOuk |
place il his presence.
"aow OLD ARE YoU?''
was the first question asked the witness by I
Ut. Fullerton OH cross-exa1nination.
t'TweIty-rinn" a general sMile).
"When were you bOrn2"
ain 1S52.'' |
"Were you ever married 81
II lave been married four times" "a more |
general SMILEY.
In the COlii3st of answers to otter questions [
.he witness g!s,e the names of her four hus-
bands, as respectively Mr.. Collins, Mr.. :rit-
'ally, Mr. Wal1ingford, and Mr.. Kedheifer, |
stating that the last-nalned gentleman was
ler last husband. She said she had procured |
Indictments against MIR. Retiheifer, and ad~
nitted having been arrestedin Philadelphia
ind tried for libel.
Extracts from various papers were in pos
session Of the plaintiffs counsel, although
lot produced in evidence, giving accounts Of
Ter sojourns it1~various lcadiug cities OF the
Various witnesses testified as to
he character of Mrs. Wallingford.
The jury was out about fifteen minutes,
nd brought i'll u verdict for the plaintiff.