The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-12-11
MRS. RICE'SM MANY AM0URS
TESTIMONY TAKEN YESTERDAY IN
TRENTON,s DIVORCE CASE.

Efforts to Make the Defendant Appear
in Court Barney Ford Makes the
Changers Mad Governor AbDebts
military ~StaT-Other State News
The hearing of testimony in the Rice
divorce case was resumed before Master
In Chancery Hannum in Trenton yester-
day afternoon.
The first witness called was Elmer
D'Unger. He testified that as ne was
standing in front of Daniels drug store
on February /, 1888, a young lady nameu
Miss Emma Buchanan came to nm rom
Mrs. Rice and asked him to direct a ieeCer
she held in her hand to a man named
Fenton. He said he was a strahser W
Mrs. Rice up to that time. ta
Mrs. Rice's lawyers objected 10 Ihis
testimony. and moved to have 1t stricken
out.
Samuel r. Weber, a former witness
was recalled, 40 correct a date estaplls4eu
in his previous examination. MI. Mac
nberson asked the witness if he had CON
suited any memoranda as TO the tlme
when he met Mrs. Rice first IN TINS CITY:
He replied that he had, and instead OF
July it was April. Mr.. Barton onJecleo
to the testimony if it came from q memo
randa. unless he could see the nleulo-
randa' The Court ruled that the memo
randa should be produced. furtner 81;
animation of the witness was suspended
until the memoranda was produced
Kate Flynn, who is employed az the
Formal Hall, this city, testlheu tnao eoI
had worked for Mrs. Rice from July, 1884,
to the spring of 1885. She knew LOUISA
Anderson. Who lived in Buckingham.
She remembered a visit mace py MIs'
Anderson to Mrs. Rice's house. MIS-.
Rice and Mrs. Anderson went away rom
- - on1 ATrG RIpn t0I0 ner
that they were going out OF Ihe Guy W
getber. The witness mailed Letters Two
Sr three times for Mrs. Rice directed TO
Peter Wilkes, and also to another genIle-
man who lived in Elmira, N. T., out
whose name the witness could NOT recan:
Lewis Chimney, q colored porter NJ
Hotel Peabody, Philadelphia, in Febru-
airy last, was the next witness. he re-
membered a party named Joseph ";
HAYES and wife, who came to the hotel
during that month. He showed them 10
Their room. He was callea TO
payne. which he did. They came to the
hotel about seven O'Clock, and ne saw
them leave about eleven or tWelve
O'Clock. He had since seen the man IN
this CITY at Smiths cigar store, on SGate
street. and had learned that his name
was not Hayes, but Applegate. Mr.. Bar
ton moved to strike out the latter part
of thet testimony, and when it was denied
he took an appeal. The cross-examina-
ton developed the fact that the witness
was paid S. a day to be present.
Mr. Macpherson at this point asked that
Mrs. Rice be produced as a witness. She
was not present in the room, Mr..
Barton asked if counsel wanted her pres
ence for the purpose of examining her as
q witness. II so he would send for her;
if not he would respectfully decline. MI.
Vroom replied that counsel had no right
to question what they wanted to do with
a witness s~ubpoenaed by this Court. we
take the responsibility OF calling the
witness" he continued, land you must
take the responsibility of not producing
her. This examination stops right mere
unless this witness is produced"
Mr.. Barton and Judge Lanning with
drew for a consultation, and upon return
ing to the room they refused to send for
Mrs. Rice, and the case went over until
next Tuesday. 1t is probable that in the
meantime the right of the opposite side
TO compel Mrs. Rice to be present will be
argued before the Vice Chancellor.