Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-04-18
NELLIE HUBBARD'S
Divorce from the COaehman She Mar.
ried Against Her Fathers WiShes-
Maggie DOOley's Infatuation for
4 NegrO-A Wife After a Truant Hus.
band is Shot to Death-Suicide
Of Catholic Priest.

WASHINGTON, April l7-Considering the
unfavorable circumstances-the close, dark,
lily ventilated Courtroom, and the unusually
long, tedious prooeedipgs-the beginning Of
the filth month of the second StSr-route
trial found the court, jury and counsel look.
ing well and in remarkably good health. All
OF the defendants were present, rather an un-
nal occurrence.
William A. Cook opened the proceedings
with statement which be said might affect
the case under consideration. He had been
informed that notice had been served upon
]. E. Price, requiring his presence in court
to-day under pain OF an attachment. He
presented d surgeons certificate showing that
Price was suffering from = csncerous sfec-
ton Of the eye, and was unable to attend.
Msrrick replied that Price had promised
TO attend with friends at The governments
pleasure, but in view of the facts as de-
scribed by Cook an attachment would not be
asked for, unless it became absolutely neces.
cary in order to comply with the forms OF
law.
Ex-Postm sster-Gsneral james was then
called to the stand by the prosecution, and
requested 10 state whose signature was al.
tsched to the kilograms shown to him BY
Rsrdell onI the trsin from New York 10
Washington in June, 1881. Iugersoll OBJ.
iecied, and a long discussion ensued.
Davidge and Henkle also argued the
point. The Court then, in rather long
aud elaborate opinion, ruled against the
prosecution.
The examination was then resumed, but
Ingersoll objected to the next uestion asked
and as the objection was sustained by the
Court the witness was excused.
The Ir)secubon then put on the stand, Tor
the purpose of conirsdicting John w. Dor
sey, three hotel clerks, who showed by hotel
registers that Rsredell was in Nebraska and
Colorado in April, 1879, although Dorsey
had sworn he was in Washington.
Judge Julius B Bisseil, of LeadYille, was
next called snd examined with regard the
so called Bedford check" In argument az
TO the sdmissibility Of this testimony, B is,
said the books showed the check to be drawn
to 81. B. B." He would not say whom 81
| B. B." represented, but admitted that he did
not new believe it meant Bedford. Witness
said that in June, 1879, he saw S. W. Dorsey
| draw a check or DRAFT, in Leadville, to the
order of 81. B. g. :" did not remember its
| exact amount, bat thought it was for about
| $4,000. 1t was to De divided among foul
dlGsIent so-,is-,an Judge Bowen, after.
| ward Senator Bowen, was one OF The party
In reply to Ingersoil witness said his (wit
Be-,,s} iaitiAis we're placed on the cheek, ane
| Dorsey suggested that Charles W. Tankers-
| ley, one of the party, collect it. Did moi
know on what bank the check was drawn
Il had been given to 1ankersley because The
! latter was Dorsey's attorney, and the check
had TO be collected out of town.
"Yes, it was a draft on New York FOX
$780," interjected s. w. Dorsey.
Witness had never been interested in IN al
businesr, and the check was not given in any
such connection.
"Was it business iranssction?" inquired
Merrick.
Witness smiled blsndly, and the Court re
msrked: "You cannot ask that, Mr.. Mer
rick"
NJ. q. R.erdell was recalled, and contra
dicted John W. Dorsey where he said tina
he (Reer ELY was in Washington in April
| 1879. Bliss then said that with the excep
tion OF proof of contents of the ClendenDil
letter, the prosecution had concluded. Cour
then adjourned.