Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-05-05
IVY QUICK'S ANSWER.
An Effort to Make Her Undergo a
Cross examination on 1t
NOW BEING FOUGHT In COURT.
Judge Clayton Hears Arguments on foung
Woods Petition. s.
HIS DECISION Is, HOWEVER, RESERVED

SPECIAL TrLxokAM TO THE DIsPArcH.;
MEDIA, PA, May 4.-The celebrated
Quick Wood case from Chester county was
up before Judge Clayton, of the Delaware
County Court, here to-day. The piaintiH
wants the defendant. Miss Ivy Quick, Of
Chester county, to go on the stand Tor cross
examination in reference to her answer to
the bill in equity Of james Emile Wood, Of
Pittsburg. At hearing in Phfladelphia
last Wednesday the defendant, on advice of
counsel, refused to testify at this time. To
get an order compelling her to testify the
matter is brought before Judge Clayton, and
his decision will be acted upon at the next
hearing, to be held in West Chester next Sat
urday.
R. Jones Monaghan, Miss Q uick's lead
ing attorney, made long address
to the court, during the course
bill in substance admits, though not stating
the facts positively and clearly, that a paper
which is claimed to be q marriage certificate
was signed by the plaintiff and defendant
on March 81, 1888.
Admissions of Wood.
SIN the third paragraph OF the plaintiffs
bill, he admits that the defendant holds a
paper, which she claims to be marriage
certificate. In the paragraph he admits
that some paper was signed by him on that
date. In the fifth paragraph he denies that
he went through any ceremony of marriage
at any place outside of Pennsylvania. This
amounts to an admission that some kind of
marriage ceremony did occur in Penn
sylvania.
'SThe eighth paragraph even more dis
tinctly, by argument at least, admits the
signing OF a marriage certificate, which, it
is alleged, was fraudulent and void, both by
reason of the allegation that it was procured
by duress. and also by constructive fraud or un-
due influence.
"The prayers Of the bill make the issue even
more distinct. The second prayer Is for a de-
cree for the cancellation and destruction of
the marriage certificate. and decree that the
same Is invalid The third prayer is for a de-
cree that the plaintiff is not the husband of the
defendant.
Use of Coercion Denied.
1.-THE defendants answer AYERS distinctly
ceremony of marriage, and in the third para
graph thereof says that on the day the marriage
was celebrated a certificate, being the paper in
was prepared and signed by both
the plaintiff and defendant. The answer dis
tinctly and unequivocally denies both the un-
due influence and the COERCION"
After citing a number of rulings, Mr.. Mon
Afghan continued: 1T cannot be overlooked
that in the case in hand the defendant has al
ready suffered greatly in the posrponement of
the taking of the testimony. The postpone
nent occurred under the prstense that it was
desired to introduce the testimony of the
plaintiff and to have him examined by John e.
Johnson. No other reason was given for ASK
ng the continuance, and such continuances
we're earnestly opposed by the counsel for the
The plaintiff cannot be permitted TO whip
around and take another course,
1t Was a Surprise.
mo notice was given TO counsel for defendant
If an intention to cross-examine their client.
IN point OF fact, the offer was a complete sur.
Prise. for they had no suggestion of it until the
was called to testify. 1t was true |
hat formal subpoena was sent to the defend |
int, but 1t is equally clear that she did not |
IS such another empty form the reading of |
he printed bill by the deputy sheriff who
erved 1t. -
attendance was required, but plainly did not |
Understand that she would be expected to res-
ify. Under all the circumstances and the
ues of law applicable to the case 1t is believed |
hat the Court Will not at this time make an
rider requiring rhs defendant to submit her
elf to cross-examinatfon, but will advise the |
Master that he should so exercise the discre.
ion possessed by him as to the order of proofs
IS to refuse such crosse xamnation until the |
,laintiH has offered his case in evidence.
Exciting Intense Interest.
''Theu again it should refuse said cross-exami- |
alton until it shall be. seen whether the de-
endant is not placed upon the witness stand
md full opportunity for her examination
forded both sides in an orderly and regular
ray."
This was answered at length by John G. |
Johnson, Of Philadelphia, attorney for the |
,laintiff, who claimed that it was no unusual
to have the defendant examined at |
his time. He said 1t was necessary for a clear
Of the case that such examina-
ion should take place at this time.
The courtroom was filled by interested spec
ators. attracted by the few facts in this most |
EXCEPTIONAL case, which they had cleaned from
he newspapers. The interest in the case is in
snse, and every movement on the part of the |
ne side or the other is watched with the keen
st attention. Judge Clayton reserved his de-
ision.