Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-05-03
DYKES VS.. VAN EVERY.
rhe Plaintiff Creates a Scene Dur
Ing the Argument.

George S. Van Every, to recover $2o,0O0
damages for breach of promise, is fast
drawing to a close, and the jury to-day
will probably render its decision. Ever
since the first day of the trial the court
room has been crowded to its utmost
capacity, and yesterday the aisles were
filed with people standing up. The case
was not commenced yesterday morning
until nearly half past 10 O'Clock, an ac-
count of the various other business which
the Court had to transact. In the mean
time Miss Dykes eyed Van Every very
closely. She tried to get him to look
into her eyes, but he studiously avoided
glancing in her direction, although he
was seated in such manner that
he could with difficulty keep
his eyes turned away. At the
opening of the case, Judge Campbell, on
behalf of the plaintiff, withdrew all OBJ
jections to the introduction OF testimony
regarding the character of his client.
This rather surprised the attorney for the
defendant, who said that some OF his
witnesses on that point had been excused,
when Judge Wade ruled that line OF tes-
timopy out of order. He then offered in
evidence part of the deposition OF vii.
liam Alltrittan and Judge Wade ruled
that that part might go in.
Judge Campbell said that in case
part of the deposition were allowed to 60
in he desired it all read.
The substance of the deposition was as
follow "My name is William Allbrlt-
tan and am a lawyer. Know both
plaintiff and defendant in this case. On
the 9th of December, 1884, an affidavit
was made in my Office in Kansas City
and signed by Frances Dykes. Some
time previous, Van Every came to my
place and said he was in trouble and that
a woman WIS at the bottom of it. She
had, however, he said, agreed to settle
with him, and she admitted having been
criminally intimate with man named
Johns. He asked me to draw up an affi-
davit for Miss Dykes to sign, admitting
her intimacy with Johns and covering a
settlement. A short time afterward,
in the evening. Van Every and Miss
Dykes came to my office and she signed
an agreement and paper, admitting her
intimacy with Joseph Johns. All copy
of these papers is herewith appended. L
explained the purport of both these pa
pers to Miss Dykes, and she seemed to
clearly understand them. Van Every,
after she had signed the papers, gave
me 500, which l gave to Miss Dykes,
and which she accepted. She was In no
way inundated, nor were any induce
ments made to secure her signature 10
the papers in my presence at that time"
The affidavits referred to were as fol-
lows:
KANSAS Cry, Mo-, Dec. 9, 1884.
Whereas, George s. Van Every and
Frances Dykes have been criminally in
innate and whereas said Frances Dykes
believes herself to be pregnant; and
whereas said Frances Dykes believes the
said Van Every to be the father of her
unborn child; therefore, and because OF
the above mentioned facts, and in con-
sideration of 500 in hand paid by the
said Van Every, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the said Frances
Dykes agrees to release the said Van
Every from all civil liability of every
kind whatever growing out of or result
ing from the relationship existing be-
tween said parties in consequence Of any
injury to the said Frances Dykes, in per.
son or character, CT in consequence OF
the birth of child, or for any expense
incurred in any way at the birth or in
the care and keeping of said child or said
Frances Dykes. FRANCES DYKES.
81 have known George s. Van Every
for about one year. The intimacy was
not secured by Van Every by any prom
Use of marriage. He never made any
promise to me at any time of marrisga.
Prior to the time met Van Every | was
engaged to marry Joseph Johns, of Chris
tan county. I subscribe to this uRder
the pains aud penalty of perjury.
FRANCES DYKES
John L. Van Every, brother Of the
defendant, testified that he lived in Kan
sas City in 1S63-4-5-6, and knew Eliza
beth Pullem there about two years. He
had met Miss Dykes at Elizabeth's house
the first time he had seen her, and he had
seen them together at numerous times and
places. He had seen them together in
1884 in office buildings with gentlemen.
He had also seen them together in this
city less than year ago. In his opinion
Elizabeth Pullem's reputation was bad,
and so was Miss Dykes in Springfield.
On cross-examination the witness said
he never was introduced to Elizabeth
Pullem until 1886, when he went to her
house to see both her and Miss Dykes.
He could not answer how he had come
to swear few minutes before that he had
known Elizabeth Pullem in 18S3-4-5-6,
or that he had seen them go into offices
with gentlemen.
Charles D. Van Every, another BROTH
er of the defendant, testified that he
knew Elizabeth Pullem. that her reputa-
ton was bad. and that he had seen Miss
DYKES with her in house in 1884 in
Kansas City that he had seen them on
the street together, both in Kansas City
andsin Los Angeles. Miss Dykes reputl.
ton was bad according to his idea, and
it was bad in 1888.
The cross examination did not bring
out much of interest, except that witness
had been called into the house when he
said Miss Dykes was with Elizabeth
Pullem by an old woman in 1884. He
couldn't remember what he had called
there for.
At the afternoon session W. D Duff, 2.
J. Buddinger and G. w. Griffith testi''
fed to having known Lizzie Pullem
in Kansas City, and that her reputation
for chastity was bad. They had never
seen Miss Dykes in her company.
Miss by kes wasthen placed on the stand
in rebutfal and denied that Allbritan
had paid her the 800 referred to in t at
document, but claimed that it was given
her by Van Every. She did not know
how much it was at the time, as she was
crying. She denied that she had stated
it was true statement, and claimed that
she was not sworn to either of the pa
pArs. She stated that she had never, at