Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1889-06-17
HALL VS.. HALL.
THE FOURTH Days HEARING IN
THIS SUIT.
Evidence In Rebuttal--Tho Case to be
Argued This Eyeaiug-Etc.

Evidence In Rebuttal-The Case to DO
Argued This Eyesiug-
The hearing in the case Of Hall vs.. |
Hall was resumed in the room of the |
Second District Court, last Saturday :
evening. at 8 O'Clock, before His
Honor Chief Justice Weir.
George N. Parsons, OF counsel for
Mrs. Hall, stated that they would in
troduce evidence to rebuff the test.
mony Of Eli Smith, an ex.Deputy
Sheriff and ex-City Marshal OF Belle
vue, the previous evening. [Smith
had testified that Mrs. Hall had come
out Of her dwelling, vaulted over
four-pole fence in tho rear of her lot,
and that right there. in the alley, at
that time, she had committed adultery
with one of the parties named in the
complaint. That Mrs. Hall. wore q
white dress on that occasion, that it
was moonlight, and that it was early
ia the evening of March s, 1885,
REP.
Mrs. Aubrey was the first witness
called. On the Sd or 4th OF March,
1885, herself and two other ladies
went to Mrs. Halls to make ice cream
for a church sociable that evening.
Mr.. Hall told tho ladies that he would
assist them, instead of his wife, as
she had gone visiting her brother
Witness was very intimate there then
and is now, as she has never seen
any reason to recall her friendship for
Mrs. Hall. The latter staid away
most of the month. Witness was
very familiar with all of Mrs
Halls clothes and dresses. She
had brown dress, black dress, etc.,
but is positive she did not have q
white dress. The fence in rear Of
the Hall lots was high board fence
about six feet high. There was pig
pen inside, and on the north or stree
end Of the lot was picket fence. Il
positive there never was pole fene.
about the Hall lot. First saw the 10
in May, 1882, when witness moved
to Bellevue. There was high boart
fence there then.
Judge Anderson endeavored t.
confuse the witness, who is one o
those good ladies of a certain ag
who are generally beloved by every
body. He was interrupted by P. NJ
Bruner and Chief Justice Weir ap
proved of the objection, saying tina
he had already told Judge Anderso
that that mode of examination wa
not proper.
. A boy 16 years old, and the oldes
son of the principals to the suit, wa
$ next put on the stand. He swo'
! positively that in March, 1885, an
for long time previously the fenc
in rear of his fathers lot was clos
/. board fence six feet high. Th'
J. there never was pole fence on ii
rear of his fathers lot or any porto
of it.
Mrs. Suffer sworn.-Her husbar
:. is locomotive engineer. In Marc
1885, ran into Pocatello, but lived
If Shoshone. Has known Mrs. He
3 about seven years. The second
u March, 1885. Mrs. Hall called ut h
house in company with the Rev. N
:. Pratt, aud they and the witness we
!, to visit the Shoshone railroad shop
>, and spent most of the afternoon
engaged. Mrs. Hall went West I
k the next train. Witness is most POI
g tive as to the date. Will swear to
q Does not think that is very remar
able, because she made memora
;, dunn of it at the time. Did so /
10 cause her husband made an extra Il
IL to Ke.chum that day. That was
only run to Ketchum that mon
II Witness keeps her husbands til
q book. "And I've got the book he
i. with me to show" Sensation, d.
R. ing which Judge Anderson bant
ingly told Judge Parsons that
~ must have coached the wltne
Judge Parsons Indignantly protest