Telegram-herald., 1888-01-11

Cas, kosss<f. saoas II a tas elyores case
go ssseoa sd ~ 81 pa. stso1
ee4Eses &. Araxzfo9s - t6s Fsar n41sai,
lss5. Wzs : 1lsrx - 5eseks a1lsi all as
pa ca t4< sltasss st4ao - sess i1xl Afs.
Cay oezfsss4 shsrs s31 - sozl aaAa1zF Gez
board cal 80 p4li
~. j. y. 0fssol3 as Bsxl e. iSd 70 ies-
ufT. zad sass zssl bs sss czIel - stlzat
Ales Axad Cay. a. the pislaE8 : ko1as.
a. tA4g shis shers be cs.lsa fer Ars. Cay
81 sep so1e zE fusnasns : rssi1@see . ssk
aeF - eoas ~ kesP ssEe exIs - Aa11. tbss
A.thoak4 Ars SlsY sas ~ the h92se s1s
was agt eai.s1 ~ toe ts.epas1s, AZ. Pat
Haan 48viak fhst tasY were annoyed -
Cisy's e1lliaz them by lslsphone.
r.. C4Ay lhsy aldat szy snythiag
aDs4l niy b4ung been annoyed D. tasir
1eeping hsr away fTon Tie ph0as
4Is prosecution theu rested wAsEenpoa
Il olallsy moved ta4t tLs c&se be disposed
Il ~it40Qt lartheF testimony On the gr0uaa
tass tie Pi&lagl1 had made % esss. There
had been 40 solicitation shown. ue cemPai-
sion. u0inlns 70 show airy u110e innasncs
Ga Ihs part % ihs defendant. Instead Of
1s. Fgtalzn's having tried to persuade 4rs.
Cay 10 leaye her husband, on tie contrary,
10 nad become surety for them for the fent
Vi house ~ which they we're 10 live To-
sstaer. Dir. Smiley proceed osd 10 quote as
klcAElrAt ~ a AclA14AL E4alc uy jug AJ<trf
szd 10 shOs the similarity of the present
oirenss charged had been shown. Ii was
admitted thai there were NO impure TelA-
tions between tbs defendant aud MFs. Clay
Gr. Pullman bad acted as her az ut IN the
sale OF one horse aud the purchase OF
another bat Mrs. Clay had = night 10 en-
p.Oy Aim as her agent. There was nothing
in the testimony 70 show thss Mr.. Clay hGi
eVer intmstea 10 Ar. Pullman that his con-
duet was Objectionable u him. Further
more, 4rs. Clay was woman OF mstars
and strong mind, and forned her own opin-
ions. Ia conclusion, 70 saws the necessity
OF developing the scandals that would fOi-
low. Hs believed the court would nnd II
pleasure as well as duty 10 grant the
mO<lon.
Nc Mitchell replied at some length. The
case quoted by the defense was one IN which
a daughter returned 20 her parents. The
rule OF lsT that applied 10 the one case was
entirely different from that in the other. IL
was the duty OF parents TO care for their
caildren. Mr. Mitchell quoted from Cooley
on IOrts. and from decisions Of the Supreme
Court in support Of bis position. lie con-
elulad lnat IA the present cass th ere " as
ey ldsnce eaough 10 bring suit even against
Parents. Here was woman OF brains and
ability, 81 years of age; she knew
me plaintiff we'll and loved and
admired him for his brains and ability. II
there il Dything to develop OF n scandslous
character, IL would not come from the
plaintiffs sioe of the case. There was Eo
danger but tnzt the plsintiff would come
out As we'll al the defendant. No threats
would. deter the prosecution from proceed
ing. II Was not to re expected that eye
witnesses OF the methods employ cd to per-
suads the woman TO leave ncr husband
would be brought, but aen were con-
yictsd Of murder by circumstsntial eyi-
6sDcs
Mr.. Mitchell continued at length arguing
from the testimony TO show that Tie de-
iendent had used his influence 10 slienate
Mrs Clay from her husband. saying IN con-
clusioD. that If there should anything come
out. which ought not 20 come, the defense
weuld oe responsible.
Mr.. Blanchard followed briefly, being, as
he said, obliged 10 take a train for the north
at o'clock. de was surprised that the de.
Tease sh ould have called the suit ci5srace-
foi proce eding.as ifan efior 10 get redress for
break ne no mans family were Clsgface-
iul. There wSs, certainly, str angs sa OF
circumstances here If there had been no in
fiueEes used Counsel said th ere was no
pers uaslon. What could be more persuasive
than a big roll OF green backs? Ii Was said
the woman was strong minded. Yes but the
testimony showed that she sometimes
yAclllated.
A. this point the counsel turned and
directly addressed, Mr.. Putnam who sat be-
hind MIR. Smiley. Mr. Smiley ihereupon
objected to this mode of procedure, unless
the defendant be allowed to reply. Mr.
Blanchard proceeded, directing his remarks
TO the Court. When Mrs. Clay was about
TO sail from New York ana the plaintiff
30 kar N n
with him, she yscillaled and said she would
let him know later. The disgrace in this
case began long ago
Mr.. Earle arose 10 reply TO the argument
OF the plaintiffs counsel. Ee confined him
self TO the law argument and cited 8 dscis-
ion in the Court OF Appeals OF New York to
controvert the theory of the prosecution.
The case showed the right q a person to
harbor wife who had abandoned her hus-
band 1t was necessary 10 show that the
third party hsd used undue iniluence 20 in
duce the wife TO leave her husband. This
Mr. Earle maintained had not been shown
in the present case. AL the authorities
agreed that aid Afforded wife il
coed faith WAS not &c ionable. In
concluding he argued from iestimony TO
show that none OF the evidence piiel un-
due influence on the part of the defendset.
Mr.. Mitchell again arose and argued 10
snow tnat the law eDunClated DY the New
York Court of Appeals did not apply. Ar.
Earle, he said, had argued that because esch
single act did not constitute evidencs OF per-
sussioD, therefore there was no pe5s laSion.
A single link did not make a chAiR. but b s
did not prove that one hundred links did
not make a chain.
Mr.. Smiley asked that as be would be
unable TO be present this morning he
be allowed few minutes TO reply. he
cited 10 some very strong Is n showing that
a parent had a right 10 care for, shield and
protect daughter or a sister. In this case
Mrs. Clay was sister-in-lgw and also q
sister IN tact. Tue plaintiff thus far has not
shown sufficient evidence TO continue this
case. He cited from Cooley on Torts, page
20. TO show the point of law as to sdop-
ton, or IN the case Of fathe, to child. II
Nrs. Clay went % Dir. Putmau and asked
for home for protection, Il was Putms n $
duty, 0y law by justice, TO let her come in.
Ar. Mitchell said. IN conclusion. that
there was no proof that Mrs. Clay was an
adopted child. Lau ghter.
Judge Buslingams concluded by saying
he would give bis decisio this morning al
ID O'Clock. Court tnen adjourned.
Fraterual Tisitors.