St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-11-16

and Coward appeared for Capt. O'Shea.
the plaintiff; Messrs. Lockwood and
Pritchard for Mrs. O'Shea, the respond
ent, and Mr.. Mccall for Mrs. Steele, sis
ter of Mrs. O'Shea, against whom there
is a counter charge of adultery with
Capt. O'Shea. Mr.. Parnell, the core
sci. Capt. O'Shea was seated in front
of MI. Inderwick, and was the only
prominent figure present. Mrs.
O'Shea'S counsel said he did not
intend to croSs-eXamine any wit
ness or call any witness in be-
half of Mrs. O'Shea or take any part in
the proceedings. This collapse of the
defense caused an immense sensation
and involves the condemnation of Mr..
Parnell to pay tine costs. Mr.. Coward
briefly opened the case for the petit
toner. He said that as he understood
the case, the respondent denied that she
had committed adultery. as did also the
correspondent. The respondent. he
said. in addition to her denial, further
alleged that the petitioner had cOnnived
at her adultery; had wilfully separated
himself from her aud was guilty of
unreasonable delay in bringing the
action against her. Sir Edward Clarke,
of counsel for Captain O'Shea, said that
Mr.. Lockwood'S announcement had
seriously altered the case now
that neither Mr.. Parnell nor Mrs.
OiShea would take any art in it.
Justice Butt here remarked: ''rhe situa-
ton is. quite new to me- and asked, "does
any one appear for Mr. Parnell:''
II have inquired responded Sir Edward
"but find that no one appears for him. 1t is
therefore an undefended case.''s
Continuing, he said that in the inter-
estS of his client, and III view of the Re-
markable pleadingS. it would be neces-
Sary to prove the petitioners case by
divorce, he said, was filed in December
last. Mr.. Parnell had then put in a
simple denial of charges of adultery.
Mrs. O'Shea did not content herself
with denial, but made countercharges
against her husband, alleging that he
had committed adultery with num-
Der OF different persons, includ-
ing her own sister, Mrs. Steele.
She also charged him with
cruelty, and with having cOnnived at
her adultery for a period extending
over long period of years. The plea
almost amounted to a confession Of
adultery. The husband was cruelty an
moved at the defendants charges, but
HC tOldlhCj WOulO NC oolC dDoOiutCiy W
disprove every possible suggestion
agaidst him. He could show that the
charge of cOnnivance was groundleSs;
that when O'Shea first heard of the in
timacy between his wife and Parnell
he challenged Parnell 10 fight duel on
the continent That continuous acts of
adultery had been committed by the re-
spondeut and correspondent would be
proven beyond doubt. Witnesses
would prove that, while respondent was
visiting in Bedford square, she was vis-
tied by Parnell, who went under the
name of Smith. at another house he
visited her as Mr.. Stuart. On one occa-
sion he had to
Escape by Balcony.
to avoid detection by O'Shea. The re-
spondent and Mr.. Parnell. Sir Edward
maintained. had actually lived together
at Eastb0urne and Brockley. Mr.. Par
nell, he SAID, could not face the evi-
dehce. He allowed judgement to go by
default because ne dared not go into
the witness box. The criminal law had
terrors for some people whom the moral
law could not bind. He did not wonder
at Mr.. Parnell's refusal to answer the
charges of faithlessuess and falSehood
and betrayal of the friendship Of the
man who was trusting him. Capt. o.
Shea stood for parliament in 1880. He
was then introduced to Mr., Parnell,
who dined with him and Mrs. 0'Shea,
Mrs. Steele being one of the party.
Nothing excited Capt Q&hea'R suspi-