Telegram-herald., 1888-01-12
CLAY SAT- DOWN UPON
raE COURT SHOWS IT'S DIGNITY.
Aza sozns R<ey fssli@osy rr ssai~<a-sEs
bs<hsE. tss LAZY ~hs Hsas -
k&Fops. Isszib. Sc aos.itsas
from Howakfs Lsss


mach testimony OF . character thai l.
eagerly soaghs after By ths puo.ic and ths
crowd iz immense. Court Ofnsr Cook says:
Il an sorry have nos seas f1r y0a. but
our chairs are hantsd7 Tnsre were old
people, Yo,lns Psopis, laslles a. yesterday,
several coi0red pe0p.s c0usFsszred t1zfs.
Ihis vas PROBABLY due y LID izsI tazl =
cC40Fec g.Ei = ia waiting "a witness
y hsn t0grt adjourned Tues day night tae
question bad been argued ~ length on a
uosloa u d.slalss the eass and then iest
With tie Court for decision.
When e0urI hzd been called % order yes
tefcsy morning NF. SNIisy Uas nol ia his
seat having been called from tns city 10 a.
| lead a funeral AF. Blanchard vas also
absent. but appeared duuEg the f0re0oon
session. NJ. Mitchell then ssksd TIE eooft
70 allow him some further ums on the
| question OF dismissal. He declared that
.asFe Is 40 evidence Ia this case showing
that Mrs. Clay had any good reason for
leaving her husband. that inxsmueh es she
ala leave. there must have been some reA-
son for Il. that tie testimony shows inter
meddlBg By Patm2n, aud that it Is for the
/ jury 10 say whether the Interference into
Mr.. Gays family adairs renders him haoie
| IN damages 20 the plaintiff. IN response 10
the assertion thai there is 40 testimony
showing inieiterence by Mr.. Putnam, be
would cite the fact that Dir. 2. opposed ne
marriage before it Was consumma that
| his allure 20 take Mr.. Clay out riding and
~ she theatre. when Nfs. Gay wAs invited.
w=s proof that the defendant doesn't like
| The piainuf, aud be thought 10 quite appar-
ent that Mr.. Putnam actually enjoys Mrs
Gays society. lie closed with the an
DOuneement that ne regarded tBe motion
- = game Of bluff.
Ar. Earle replied that he had nothing TO
say IN regard to the law points as nothing
new had been presented.
Judge Burlingame in a few words an
nOuneed that he would overrule the mo-
| ton aud allow the csss 70 proceed.
Counsel Earle, in the language OF one
who states case plainly and 70 the point,
said that the claim OF the plaintiff Is
| that AIR. Pullman is guilty OF having inter
| fercd with Mr.. Csays family affairs. and
| brought about a separation OF man and
wife. He said that they would show that
Mr.. Putnam was not only not guilty Of such
conduct, but that after the marriage had
taken place, what Mr.. Putnam did, sctuslly
! tended 10 prevent the separation. rather
suited with Mr.. and Mrs. Putnam, asking
their opinion rs 10 the prO2riety of her
marrying Mr.. Clay some months before the
wedding took place. and was advised by
| them not TO marry him. That after the
| wedding Mr. Cay probably did. for some
| tine. behave better than before; but he
| finally fell into his old habits OF drinking
and frequently INDUCED in psing indecsnt
| Language tOeards his wife; that he some
| times charged her with being intimate with
4 other msD. naming them; that on one oc-
casion, when Mrs. Clay was absent from
! home, Mr.. Clay tried 10 persuade the hired
| girl to accompany him TO q room; that
| shs girl managed 10 get into her room
| ahead Of him and bAIricaded the door;
| that she remained up all night
without undressing, fearing that Mr.
| Clay would get into her room; that they
would show that Gays children were not
sen. away at Ars Clay's request, but be-
| cause of their fathers inhuman trsAtmeus
of them; that Mr.. Patmaa did not accom-
psny Ars.CiAy and bis family 20 NewYork.
when Mrs. Clay started for Europe, and
| that AIR. Putnam was not on the boat at al:
/ that Mr.. aud Mrs. Clay occupied separate
beds for several months before tho separa-
ton, aud the defense could show that Mrs.
| Clay had abundant reason for such q course;
that while she WAS in Europe, Ar. Clay
wrote her insulting letters, charging her
with having gene abroad to be intimate
with men, naming the men, all OF which
both annoyed and gFieye6 Mrs. Clay; that
after her return from Europe. she lived with
him awhile, hoping to get along withou. an
! open and complete rupture; that her efforts
/ were Ia vain; that it was but another case
| of a contest between woman and a Jug
| for ths possession OF q man, and the jug
won; that Mr.. Clsy's conduct finally became
30 intOieraDle that she was obliged 10 leave
| him. which she did of her own vOlition.
/ Mr.. Esrle then called 10 the stand Mrs. n.
| L. Bocher, who WAS previous TO her mar
| risge Aiss Richards and the lady who ac-
| cOmpanied Mrs. Clay to Europe. She said
| she had known Mrs. Clay since 1853; know
| OF her marrying Mr.. Clay, studied medi-
1 cine IN Mrs. Clay's Office. and was init
/ mAtely acquainted with her; saw her with
| In day or Two after the wedding; probably
saw her Orce week. or oitener; rarely saw
SIR. Clay; know that Mr. and Mrs. Clay bad
| trouble before she went to Europe; learned
| OF IL three or four times; hrs. when they
lived at Mr.. Smiths 5, and at other times
when they were keeDing house.
hr. Mitchell hers objected 10 her stating
what Mrs. Clay told her at any time, as 1t
| WAS besrsay evidence. The Court overruled
| the objection and the witness said:
Not many months after their marriage,
Mrs. Clay said that the reason why Mr..
| Putman's children were never seen az her
| house was because Mr.. Clay objected tOtheir
| coming there aud that the reason Why she
I -
any more Was because ar. Clay objected.
A. this point thes witness started
% tell something that evidently
didnt ct the plaintiff and hs
! quickly rose 10 bis feet, Ar. Aitohsll 81
| tbs same moment attempting TO argue on
an objection. CIsv objected to any such
testimony and said be knew what TOOK
| place and woGld tell the Court. Here oae
| Of toe liVeiisst scenes Of the trial took
/ t6e wsv the witness wss beng used sud the
| Court overridsd, ordered Mr.. Clay to sub
side AZ once, saying be was able 10 ss5
| what Was proper and what was not. tasl
| the Cogrt would not De bu,ldozsd o.
! counsel nor anybody else. that be va.
running the Superior Court. and that Mr
| Clay must sehsve himself the same az sny
| other SuitOr. that he must no interrupt
Witnesses on the stand. exceps in the pro.
per and leglumsie vay-by objection
| thr0ugh bis counsel.
Aftorueg Mitchell then expressed bis ap-
proTat q the Coart's rulings and said hs
voald shide hY the decisions with dscoTum
( bat wss abis to tsse care Of bic case ans
/ profect bis interests, sbersup0n Juiz'
/ Barlinza remarked thai tbe Court co0lo
tsxe care of Itself too.
Order having bsen restored. the witness
| procesded. ~Hs3 very little further con
| vsrsati0u with ker til Trey went 50 Egrops
/ Before they irft witness correseona4d itn
I ticket agents rsfstiva 10 transportation, snc
engaged transportation for herssif and Dr.
! Rutherford Cay. Sas got blank sp-
! plioaaous for passports, which So
I sna Dr. Cisv sxecuted before
/ Notary Pebble n the Pntman-Earnh har'
/ lumber oflce. Passports vereErsfurnea &
I her. aid she ha.i been n possession ef ~
ossy's pssspoTs ever siHce- Witness iaenti-
+ fee ths 3aru rents, whifh wss offered IN
/ svtience sns reaa aF 4r. Earle. TIE nans
appearing tnerri3 is "Frs1ces A. RsEheT-
+ feri Clsf N-s Gag left fcr New aes
T before wisnsss di3 Joined Der sun8ns hs
4 Fh.to4arf lsias ane scceFslnsa - her a. :