Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-02-15
WHICH

Sensational Proceedings In the Municipal
Court Mistaken IndcntttB or adultery.
In the municipal court yesterday afternoon
an unusually sensational and We might say
romantic case was brought. The action was
brought at the instance of John s. O'Donnell
against Mrs Kate O'Donnell and George W..
Lutz, whom he charged with adultery.
The story of the complaining witness is par
ticularly sad. He alleges that he was married
to the defendant who was then Miss Katie
McCue, in Bradford, small town near Pitts
burgh, Pa, in the year 1877. The ceremony
was performed by Catholic priest; that both
himself and wife had been born and reared
Catholics; that the first few years of the
marriage was happy; that one child
had been born unto them. Last
August they removed to this city. O'Don nell
is a plain mechanic and found employment
here His wife was we'll educated in her youth
and being bright and prepossessing, went to
Lake Minnetonka and secured school which
she taught during the last fall. On each Sat
urday night she came home and remained
with her husband until the
next Monday morning when she returned
to her school. Finally she became less regu-
lar In coming home, and quite frequently
failed to come home for weeks At first no
suspicion was aroused in the mind of the hus-
band, but finally an impression began to dawn
upon his plain mind that all was not as it
should be.
One evening he CHANGED to meet his wife
upon the arm of an old acquaintance, Prof.
George W. Lutz, whom he had known as a
law student at Pittsburg. He then remem-
bered that Lutz and his wife had been intimate
friends, and his jealousy was aroused to
fever height. he took her to task
for her unfaithfulness. She was
apparently penitent, and begged to
be forgiven for her sin. The magnanimlty OF
the husbands indulgent, land forglving nature
asserted itself, and the matter was amicably
fixed up. But the wife who had once fallen
could not regain her self respect, and was soon
in the power of her destroyer, resulting in the
legal action.
THE OTHER SIDE.
The defendants tell very different story.
They assert that it is either simply wonder
full case of mistaken identity or the COM
planning witness is crank. They seem to in
cline more to the latter theory.
The prosecution was not ready for trial,
but the attorneys for the defense, not wishing
the prisoners incarcerated to await an
examination, introduced A. ]. Warren,
q travelling man, who testified that he had
known the defendant, Lutz, in Pttsburg, In
1878. That one evening Lutz told him he was
about to be married; that the next time they
met he introduced MIN 10 the lauy as MS wire,
and understood that they lived as man and
wife.
The counsel for defense moved the suit be
dismissed as no evidence had been introduced
which should hold the prisoners. The count
refused the motion on the ground that the
prisoners had not yet been examined. Exam
ination was then waived and the prisoners
placed nnder $500 bonds to appear at the next
term of the district court.
The personal appearance of the two men il
the action are very dissimilar. The complaining
witness is small and very plain looking man
about 80 years OF age, and seemingly quite IN.
cultured. The defendant is larger and more
prepossessing man, apparently cultured and
Intelligent and good conversationalist. The
woman, while not particularly handsome, can.
not be called very plain. She is intelligent and
pleasing. Both the defendants have been re-
Gently employed as instructors in Archibald's
academy.