St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-04-30

respondent in Fosters complaint, but
failed to appear. Neither was Mrs Fos-
ter in court. Much testimony was given
by Foster, and an array of landladies,
who, each III turn, told how Lowering
and Mrs. Foster had applied for and
received room and board from them as
man and wife. The testimony showed
that Lowering enticed Mrs. Foster away
from her home and induced her to live
at his expense and under his care at
various resorts and at his room. This,
one would Judge from the evidence. was
many months ago. Lowering and the
woman lived in open and no.
torious adultery, and the husband
who now asks tor divorce, although
cogniZant of the fact, did not apply for
divorce until long after his wife had
left the paths of virtue. 1t was shown
that he even visited her while she lived
on the f1atboat with Lowering. She
would not return to her husband, and
1t appears there was negligent and
wrongful leniency on the part of Foster
after he knew of his wife's lewdness.
One witness testified that Mrs. Foster
declared that she was ''stuc1p on Low
erlng so badly that she would not recog-
nize her husband any more, but would
live with Lowering in spite of Fosters
protestations. The oral testimony given
i'll court was too filthy for publica-
ton. The court viewed the matter
in very fair light, and gave Mr. Lover
ing such send-off that, if made public,
would forever exclude him from the
realms of responsibility. After Judge
Kerr had listened to the tales of immor-
ality of the principals in the case he
shut off the debate by addressing Foster
in the following language:
I have heard pponph Of tbic roofiar oo,,
vince me of facts which will guide my final
decision of your case. The court will not
grant you divorce now. However YOU can
do much TO prove your sincerity by causing
your wife to appear before the grand jury as
guilty of adultery, and have her and this
man Lowering indicted for the crime. 1t
appears conclusively that the liaison be-
tween her and Lowering is and has been
OF the most odious kind, and il
such Ylllalnous men and Women.Were incar-
cerated in the state penitentiary four or five
years, there would be less of such crimes
committed, one might say in the daylight of
company depends upon the public patron
age for the support of its Institution. To
employ such man as Lowering and bring
such character in contact with its patrons,
is matter that might well be rectified.'
Foster, who hoped to rush through
the litigation, left the court room rather
disappointed and, no doubt. feeling like
a man who had been cOrnered. One
thing is certain, he will never get di-
vorce if he leaves the matter as it now
stands.
In the case of Edward X. Multi kin
against Fannie M. Mullikin, an action
for divorce OH the ground of desertion,
Judge Brill files decree in favor of
the plaintiff. Mr.. Mullikin is thirty
two and his wife thirty years DID,, and
they were married at Cumberland, Me-,
on the 18th of April, 1881. In July,
1885, Mrs. Mullikin deserted her home
and has ever since lived apart from her
husband.
SUPREME COURT BOUTINE.
Yesterdays routine of the supreme court:
Albert t. Jellison, respondent, vs. Thomas
Halloran; appellant; John F: Lyon, appel
liant. VS.. John Gleason, respondent: Stephen
Harden. appellant, VS.. City of Minneapolis,
respondent. All argued and submitted.
None OF the seven candidates tor ad mis-
sion TO the bar succeeded in passing the re-
quisite examination.