Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-11-15
THE DEFENSE COLLAPSES.
Beginning the Trial Of the O'Shea Di.
vnPCo Caeo

Beginning the Trial Of the O'Shea d.
vorce Case.
LONDON, Nov. 1a-The trial. Of the O'Shea
divorce case opened in the divorce court this
morning. A large audience was present to
listen to the proceedings. Mr.. Justice Butte
presided. A special jury had been impanneled
LOWS and Coward appeared for Capt.
O'Shea, the plaintiff; Messrs. Lock-
wood and . Pritchard for Mrs O'shea,
the respondent, and Mr.. Mccall for Mrs. Steele,
sister OF Mrs. O'Shea. against whom there is a
countercharge OF adultery with Capt O'Shea
ent nor represented by counsel. Capt. O'Shea
was seated in front of Mr.. Inderwick and was
the only prominent figure present.
Counsel for the respondent. Mrs. O'Shea
stated that it was not his intention to cross
examine any witnesses or call witness on the part
of his client, nor should he participate in the
proceedings An immense sensation was caused
by this announcement, as the action of the de-
tense condemns Mr.. Parnell to very heavy
costs.
The course pursued by Mr.. Lockwood Of
counsel for Mrs O'Shea, in abandoning all in
tention to either cross-examine or call wit
nesses on behalf of the defense, has very ma
rally altered the position OF the famous
case.
Mr. Clarke Of counsel for Capt. O'Shea, in
calling attention to the changed compile xion
of affairs, said that the prosecution found itself
in court with neither respondent nor core
spondent to participate in the conduct OF a
defense.
In response to q question by Mr.. Justice
Butte, Mr.. Clarke said that the counsel for the
plaintiff had been unable to find that any one
vas in court to appear for Mr.. Parnell and that
the suit would therefore seom to be unde-
tended.
THE PROSECUTION PROCEEDS.
Continuing, Mr.. Clarke said that notwith-
standing the declnation OF the defense to pro-
coed he nevertheless felt it necessary to prove
the strength of his clients case by the present
ment to the court of sufficient evidence. The
respondent, Mr.. Clarke said, had made sweep
ing counter charges against her husband, al
leging cruelty, connivance and adultery-the
latter offense having, she affirmed, been en-
dured during period covering several years.
Her plea was, counsel for the prosecution
claimed, almost tantanount to confession.
Capt. OShea would counsel asserted, easily
p owe the untruth Of all the defendant alleged.
Ind especially the charge of connivance in her
inf1delity. It would also be shown that when
Capt O'Shea first heard OF the intimacy OF his
wife with the corespondent-Mr.P arnelI--hn
promptly challenged that gentleman to duel.
The prosecution would prove beyond cavil the
commission by the defendants to the suit OF
continuous acts Of adultery. 1t would show
that under the name Of Smith, Mr.. Parnell
had visited his clients wife at the Bedford
square residence. .
1t would go further and establish the fact
that at another house, this time under the name
OF Stuart he had continued his visits and that
on ono occasion while visiting there he had bee u
compelled to jump from the balcony in order
to avoid detection by Capt O'Shea.
Mr.. Clarke then referred to the fact that the
respondent and Mr.. Parnell lived together,
both at Eastborne in Sussex and at the Brock
ley in Kent.
Counsel charged that Mr.. Parnell had al
lowed the case to go by default because he
dared not 90 upon the stand and tell the truth
The criminal law had terrors for some persons
who never could be bound by the canons Of the
moral law. Under .he circumstances and the
facts Of the case 1t was not TO
be wondered at that Charles Stewart
Parneli refused to answer to the charge of
faithlessuess, falsehood and base betrayal of
the confidence Of friendship. Going back to
the direct line Of prosecution Mr.. Clarke por-
trayed the approaches made by Mr.. Parnell to
the respondent in 1881, and which had so
aroused the anger Of his client as TO result in
the issuance by HIM Of q challenge to the be-
trayer of his home,