National Republican., 1882-03-21
THE oHRrsrIANcY CASE.
More Dispositions 20 nc Taken In Detroit
for the ex-senator.

for the ex-senator.
Yesterday IN the Equity Court the motion Of
Messrs Cuppy & lngorsoll to take further tesu.
mony for the complainant came up for hearing
before Judge Hagner, sitting as chancellor. Mr..
c. c. Cole appeared for the respondent. Judge
Cuppy said that motion had been made by the
other side 10 object to the testimony being taken;
he thoughtful even ifthe testimony was irrcle-
want, 1t should be taken before the commissioner
and objected TO when II comes UP before the chan
collor. In support OF bis argument, he cited SOW
eral Michigan and Indiana precodonts. In the
original bill filed by HIS client II set up the adul-
terry ofthe respondent in the District She filed
an answer denying the act, and also cross. bill
alleging cruel treatment in Michigan, the Dis
trict, md Peru. To the cross. bill an answer was
duly filed. Portions Of the bill were here read
The testimony wns not Irrelevant, as 1t would in
great measure help the chancellor to
FIX THE AMOUNT OF AIiMoNY.
Mr.. Cole said he should not waste much time In
arguing his motion. judge Iingner said "t will do
you the Justice TO say you very seldom do you al
that the dcposltions had better be taken unless
they are mnnifestly Irrelevant" Mr.. Cole, con
tinuing, said the counsel for the complainant had
abandoned their original ground to impeach the
crcdtbility of the witness 1night, and now iutro
duced this testimony in bar Of his clients cross
bill. fher connuct wNs reprehensible he admit
ted it would tend 10 lessen her aimony But the
defense to the ossbill rests only upon rositiye
dcnials that any cruelty had been committed on
itepouueHt, huu Olly NllCke llut ullC uCt VI
adultery was committed BY her in the District of
I Columbia. The plaintiff had not come into court
and admitted cruelty, and that the defendants
conduct brought It upon her. If the bill alleged
that adultery had been committed with Anderson
or 1luight and by reason Of these acts coming to
her husbands knowledge the cruelty hnd been
committed, he would have nothing to sny. The
allegations were loose, and every allegation in a
bill Of divorce, and
ESPECIALLY WHERE IT is ADULTERY,
must he stated with great exnctness, and the time
and place specified. Judge Haguer asked Mr..
Cole If n commission issued to take testimony out
Of the Jurisdiction of the court and the witnesses
went into irrelevant matter would he stop the ex-
animation there or strike out the foreign matter
when 1t comes back here? Mr. Cole said he would
wait until II came back. Judge Hagner said the
same applied TO the present case, and that II
seemed to him that the court would be entering
on very delicate ground II 1t attempted to sin the
wheat from the tRres unloss, of course the matter
was fagrantly irrelevant, Mr. Cole said he had
desired to keep scandaous statements out of the
bill, which were really foreign TO the case. After
| some further discussion, on motion of Mcssrs.
| Cuppy lngersOl tho Chancellor made rule
| directing thnt commission be ordered to issue to
| Chauncey Flowers, of Detroit Mich, 10 take the
| testimony of George and Victor Christiancy on
behalf Of the complainant to the original bill. The
| object of this testimony will be, in great meas
| ure, to rebut Haights testimony.