Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1890-11-28
PARNELLrA RUINEDMAN
aE ENGLISH JURY DEciDEc
AGAINST HIM.

The Great Loader Of the Irish Party
Found Guilty OF DebsuChing the Wife
OF His Friend, Cspt. O'Shes-It Il
Thought that He VIII he Fsrcsd % Re-
tire from the L~adsrship Of His PsFty.
London cablegram.1
The great suit In which Capt. O'Shea. ex-
member Of Parliament, asked for a divorce
from his wife, naming as the correspondent
Charles Stewart Parncll, the Irish leader. is
ended, and Mr.. Parnell is disgraced for
ever.
Capt oshea has won his verdict against
Parneli almost entirely on the testimony of
the servants whom Parnell was in the habit
Of tipping literally. These witnesses ratified
on their recollections Of names and dates 80
glfbly that one juryman offered feeble
protest and said that he would like to hear
them cross-examined before he could de-
termine whether or not O'Shea connfved at
the adultery Of his wife. Justice Butt an
swered that however desirable that this
might be 1T was not possible because there
was no one In court with power to cross
examine for Parnell or Mrs. OShea. The
result was the Jury not only declared Par
nell guilty Of adultery with Mrs. O'Shea.
but acquitted Capt. O'Shea Of connivance
ut his wife's dlshonor.
In summing up. Justice Butt said that the
jury was placed In some difficulty by reason
OF the appearance of only one side. Neither
respondent nor Correspondent had thought
Mt to appear. The first question the jury
had to consider was whether Mrs. O'shea
and Parnell had been guilty Of adultery.
Upon that question there was great mass
of evidence which he did no. think neces-
sary to call attention to in detail, because
unless they were prepared for some reason
or another to say that almost every one
OF the witnesses called had been telling
false stories there could be no doubt Of
adultery. In fact the evidence was SO strong
he did not propose to occupy the time Of the
jury In any further observations upon it.
The question of conformation and con-
nivance 1.-THE words meant pretty much the
same thing) would, however. prevent the
granting of the decree II such charges were
established. The petitioner had sworn on
his oath there was not the slightest pretense
Tor the charges. There was no evidence to
the contrary. 1t was a serious responsible
ity for the jury to take upon themselves to
disbelieve suncontradicted evidence unless
there was some very strong reason for as
Stunning that the petitioner was guilty Of
perjury. He could not help thinking that
the matter did not rest upon the evidence
OF Capt. O'Shea himself. There was mass
that the petitioner was not guilty of being
accessory to his wife's adultery. Why
should Parnell have assumed names of Fox,
Preston, Stanhope and number of others?
Furthermore, when the husband came to
the door of one of the houses at Brighton,
why did Parnell, who was with Mrs. O'shea,
escape by way of the window and then come
round to the door as II nothing had hap
pened? There was an absolute answer in
favor of Capt. O'Shea.
On the question Of connivance he would
point out to the jury that If the husband
had been really an accessory, Parnell, not
withstanding his adultery, could stand in a
better position, 1t was immoral, improper.
and reprehensible to indulge in too great
intimacy with a married woman, whether
the husband was party to it or not, but
the man would not be quite SO guilty. il the
husband were to give him opportunities tc
debauch his wife. To bring such charges
against Captain O'shea were simply shock
ing. He would ask the jury to find tina,
adultery had been committed and to decide
whether there had been any connivance o.
adultery on the part of the husband.
The jurymen did not leave their seats
Without moments delay the foreman de.
clared they were agreed.
ado you find the respondent guilty OF
adultery with the correspondent" he was
asked.
ess ,,ss lss sr
ado you find the correspondent guilty o
odn with ho non1ontSO