New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-03-23

| Flack, brought her paper which was an agreement
between her and Flack to live apart she to receive
a house and SO week, and that paper snc sleheu'
but she never signed anything that related 10 dVorcc
Her alleged signature to the complaint to an affidavit
in which she Is represented having gwen cVioencc
before Mecks and 10 other legal papers we're all
forgcries. All this and much more she SAID with
,obs and streaming eyes, and when Mr.. Golf turned
her over to Judge Russell she had told enough 10
Justify Flack's sentence to states prison for He
There was nothing conciliatory in Judge Russelps
manner as he entered upon her crosscXamination'
lie was promptly bclgcrcnt and made her promptly
rcscntful II may rot be fair to say that this was
foolish policy, and yet cannot perceive how 1t was
wise Later. when he had compelled her TO re-tell
her woes twice as cmphacay as she originally told
them he adopted the old. familiar dodge of proving
that when the burglar isn't burglng he Is an amable
sort of chap. Had he started on this tack In the
first place he might have accomplished something.
for the witness decidedly affected when lie asked II
Flack hadn't been a good husband to her. 81 lie has
taken good care Of me- she said. Hes kind
man al heart and has let want for anything
Bat st she would admit nothing As 10 tnc main
points. The defence tried to convince her that she
was confirmed drunhard and that her Dad hablH
had led to all her marital sorrows But this she
met with robust denials. she had never touchcd
Inuor except at thc table or for medicinal effect and
had never in her life been all under its influence
The only thing Judge Russell could accomplish was
70 tanglc her up little 10 her signatures lie got
her nervous and excited and made her deny some OF
her genuine signatures This was none too creditaby
done however. and its effect upon fair.mndcd OBJ
servers was condcmnatory of Judge Russell rather than
Of the witness.
To maintain defence upon the lines adopted in
Mr. Fullcrton's speech to the jury 1t was necessary
10 do "A vast amount Of denying. Judge Bookstaver
had to be contradictcd lie proved himself to be
blind and stupid The defence insisted also that he
was bad and than Mceks. Mccks's story on
the witness stand charges Booksavcr with repeated
pcrurie. wholly regardless Of the fact that to prove
the Judge more guilty did not have the slightest
tendency to prove Mcchs innocent. defence based
on allegations against Mr.. Flack and Judge Book
stayor j., no defence to the Indictment whatever The
Indictment charge that Flack and Ilack ir and Mces
con~pircd 70 cheat justice, to secure divorce by
fraudulent means. But says the defence Mrs. Flach
knew all about it and Hes when She says she didn't
What hn, that - do with IT , suppose she did know
all about IT., suppose. indeed. that she was CO.
cons rato the charge that the divorce was Illegally
got Iut. says the defence. the parties should have
been divorced, she was a drunkard and had driven
him t. seek companionsAip away from hi, home, he
a. know ledge that he adulcicr, Therefore they
ought to have been divorced. What has that to do
with it, suppose they both drunken a
tumbc-huss and fithc,s cat. there j, a right
way and a wrong Way procure divorce; they went
about the wrong way this (, the charsc-answcr
il. But. say, the defence, Judge Book,tavcr con
scented 70 all did he says be difn't bat lie lies
the fact h hc suggested all methods and approved
them when had carried them ont. What has that
20 do with itl That Is merely aging that he was
a. bad. or worse. than the rest II you, claim al
together beside the i-,n" and going merely to the
degree in which be- should he punished.
This is the defence and all Of IT, II Is based on
the claim that If three men are black they can be
made white Is llachcnng three other men. When
such lawyer, Mr. Russell. Mr.. Bird and Mr. Fuller
ton are compelled by the cxiccncics of their case u
ask Is Jury 10 accept that sort Of logic. the -luaor
and poverty Of their resources do not need to DE
characterized. And If jury can be deceived into
accepting b. all that all, the logic must be- imputed
also to the jury and another proof Is afforded that
wise men should settle their differences by matching
pennies rather than hy resort to the palladium OF
human tcrucsr