Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-09-19
THE BLAINs libel SUIT.
rho HiIi VI discovery oy which Shoemaker
Juttiliea Ills Charge.

puttiHer Ii- tnsfss
The bill OF defendant says that in order
to maintain the defense of Justification
pleaded by Shoemaker it will be necessary
and material FOR tho orators 20 show aud
prove that Blaiuo had Illicit relations with
aud seduced the person whom no after.
wards married, the result OF said inter
c1U.5s being the birth of child N about
tarco months after said marriage The
bill goes on TO say that the orators are
informed ard believe tha, the marriage of
JamG G., Blaine and Harriet Stauwocd
oCClICl OF or about March 90, 1851, ia
PiNShurg that the marriage was clan
dtSilEsty arranged, GcUretly performed and
hastily accomplished that no liceuse was
issued b. any authority fox such marriage,
uoac being required by the laws of Penn
sylvGalA at that t,mo that no public
Official record was kept or made for the
the same reason that one Bryan, the
minister who otllelateI at said marriage,
had beeu dead for several years, and that
Il apy private memorandum or record Of
the marriage was ever made the same has
! been lost 0r destroyed.
Tho bill then states that for some time
| before the date of said marriage Blaine
was q professor at al institution of learn
Ing al DrIllersbarg, Ky; that Miss Stan =
wood was an iGstTuctress in female school
at the Same place, ard that they there be.
came acquainted ; inst both were unmar-
Tied aud that Blaine addressed Miss Stan
wood as suitor hat Le gained her
confidence and that Illicit relations cnsued
that a short time before said marriage
j lcOb S.anw0od, \ brother or uncle of
Harriet, OF some other person or persons
unknown to the orators, waited On Blaiue
aud charged him with being the cause OF
Mss StauwJCd'S condition and threatened
Dim with psES0uai violence unless be mar
ried Eer that Blaine made no denial oi
the charges aCd in Consequence of bsinG
| threatened agreed to marry her, and that
one or moro persons were present at the
| interview between Blaine and the relative,
| 0u; WHO tGcsC persons wers is un-
known to the orators. The bill
| then STATES that after tho marriage
| Mrs. Blaine went to Augusta, Maine,
| where a child was born about the 1Ssh of
| juno, 1851, and that said child was always
| Eocoguized and acknowledged by Blaine as
! his sou. Tue orators further say they
have a good and valid defense, as stated il
their plea OF justification that the facts
stated in the answer are true and the same
can be fully established by the answers OF
biaing 10 the interrogatories heretofore
| P.OpOEuied, ali the circumstance, being
| lhhy FHO"h 20 DIn, ana tnlt 1ull and
conuietC discovery of said facts, from and
| by Blaine IS cessary TO the orators II
| heir defense, in aid Of such other testi
moGy IS may be procuIaols. Unless thi.
| is dOEU the orators cannot 90 fully set Ou'
and completely show aud prove the fact
| necessary u their defense. The o:atort
| Therefore pray that full and complete
| discovery b made by Blaine in relation tC
the facts heretofore stated and to that enc
! that ho be ordered to answer the sam
under oath. The bill closes By asking
that i writ Of subpoena be issued out u
chaGGery for Blaine AID that he be ordered
10 dnsTCr particularly the iuterrogatories
| that tho pgocrodiugs DO stayed until such
| I.G6 - B.a.ue answers; that in cast
| Bia,ue fails To answer said bill, or fQlly apC
| truly 10 answer the interTocatories, further
| proceedings be perpetuaily stayed or TO
| strained,