St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-03-25
RAkED OVER GOALS,
Forensic OraJory Let Loose
ON the Warner Domestic
Jangle.
Attorney Sanborn Holds That
MrS. Warner Has Been
Inpeached.
Her Cry for Property Enough
to Drive a Man to
Drink.
Attorney Wellington's Brill
liant ArPaignment Of the
Husband.

The argument in the Warner divorce
case took up the entire time Of Judge
BrilFS court yesterday and are not yet
concluded. Mr.. SanbOrn resumed his
argument yesterday morning, and it was
nearly o'clock in the afternoon when
he concluded. He had at hand d propo-
sition of type written notes of the evil
dence annotated with The points he de-
sired to make thereon. Having pre-
scented the law points the day before, he
confined himself yesterday to review
of the evidence adduced.
AS 10 Mrs Warmers allegations, they were
conuadicted by MIR. Warner, and she mnst
show by Il preponderance of evidence that
her story is true. He reviewed the various
instances in which Mrs Warner alieeel acts
of cruelty, and cited testimony of witnesses
which he claimed cOntradicted her story.
Mr. SanbOrn presented his views OF the
case in manner that showed much thought
and care in the preparation of the defense.
He asserted that Mrs. Warner had been the
aggressor IN the differences and had exag-
gerated the troubles. IF ever a man had
prOvocation to kick woman out of bed"
lie said Mr. Warner had. She was talking
property from eleven o'clock to two o clock.
Her cry for properly was not for the $50
month, IL was for one-halI his whole fortune.
rs this woman insane?' he asked. "She
turns around and acknowledges in letter
that she has been torturing and harassing
him.
Mr.. SanbOrn, in closing his argument,
claimed that Mrs. Warner is responsible
for the state of affairs, and had pro-
voked Mr.. Warner beyond endurance.
MIR. WellinGton,s Argument.
1t was nearly o'clock when Mr..
Wellington arose TO make his argument.
He prefaced his address with statements
TO the effect that in presenting his
views of the law and in reviewing the
evidence, he regretted that his duty re-
CURED him to criticise the evidence
Of any one, or that the sacred
ness of home must be invaded.
lie quoted from Massachusetts case to
the effect that when force and violence
was once apparent on the part of the
husband he should not have the right to
control his wife. He said that the plea
of recriminatiOn had not been set up in
the answer, but the case had been tried
on that theory, and he had not objected
because he was willing that the whole
matter might be Slfted. When wife
sues for divorce because her husband
whipped her lie cannot justify assault
tor accusation or recrlnlnatiOn. 1t
might allow him to recriminate or reply
with charges. but it does not excuse
him for making an assault upon her.
Where there is one gross act OF cruelty
it raises an apprehension Of a repetition
Of the 0tTense. MI. Wellington then
proceeded TO discussion OF the facts in
the case in a way that showed his thor
ough digest thereof, and he made a most
lucid and consistent pres eminent OF
them as far as he Went. He said:
There is perhaps no better way TO grasp
a Wit n
| OF the mental capacity of the parties. The
| actions of persons on the stand shows the
! mental CALLER and from the character OF
| testlfylng rather than from what is said is
! the proper way to ascertain the credibility of
| witnesses. Speaking of the principals in the
| trial, he said Mrs. Warner was
EoGa Gushing Girl,
and Mr.. Warner was not an ardent youth
when they were married. They were persons
of mature years, and they married from
first to mention property and now his coun.
| sci rings the changes on property property !!
| property. although his client was the first
to bring it into consideration. He had lost
! his wife two years before. His two elder
| daughters were about 10 marry and leave
him, and he wanted a woman to be
| mother to his younger children and TO take
care of his home. Very likely he painted
to her the advantages of the social position
| he could confer. Ali this TO woman teach
| ing music was an inducement. She said TO
| him: Il make $50 month" girl would
| not think OF money. Mrs. Warner was
! woman who knew the world. lie said Il
/ will give you $50 month for pin money"
She was not obliged to account 10 him
! for the expenditure OF that money.
lie SaiQ he went to Gen. JohnsOn's 10
arrange for securing her that sum CT money
! He said 1t was not agreed 10 secure her the
| SO. She says it was TO be reduced to writ
| ing. Which started out right? The apples
! Of gold were not more productive of strife
| month piuh
months of their married life he charged her
with every item of expense he paid out for
| her. Her expense and board at Springfield
were charged against il: SO was the
nurse for his child. The first act
of injustice was his not fulfilling his agree
! ment TO her. Instead of paying her $50 ct
| the first of the month it was paid out in drib-
lets. and soon became a source of dispute
! Hedging her in the items of Xpenseindicated
| the spirit that actuated him. The COMPLAINT
about the purchase of clothing for the un-
| born child because it might not be born
alive and he wanted a sure thing before
spending the money indicated the spirit of
the man. As to chastising man S
wife, said Mr.. Wellington, "a new rule OBJ
tains in the forum. The common-law license
to chastIse his wife, as long as he does not
beat her with stick thicker than his thumb
has passed away"
The Specific Acts
of cruelty were then discussed Before the
birth of the child he wrote her at Macon
IF that child does not cement US. we had
better separate" He denied that he had
mentioned separation up to that
time. There is The first thought of
separation, and it comes from him.
| Two months after the birth of the child he
| admits that he thrust her upon the lounge
She resisted, and he used sufficient violence
to do it. He can't remember what either said
or what led up to that incident 1t may have
been an act of affection, but in view OF the
| decisions of the courts think not As to tho
claim that she is impeached, when we go out
side of his relatives we find she is corrobor-
| ated and he is disputed. Addie Cranky saw
| him take hold of her arms. thrusting her into
| a corner, and saw the black-and-blue marks
| upon her arms when she gave her a bath.
He disputes that abuse, Addie Cranky cor
| roborates Mrs. Warner although she did not
see him sit upon her. As to pushing his wife
| from the bed, / might make a distinction
| if l wanted to. but he did not make a
She said she had put her arm gently upon
his shoulder when his back was turned and
asked that they make up; he turned over and
| pushed her from bed. If that degree of
end of Caudle lectures, and men may kick
their wives out of bed and end it. AS to the
| buggy incident: If the lick had been a
playful one she would not have complained.
1t was the motive iii the stroke that hurt
He admitted that he was angry when he
struck her. The May boy saw him strike her.
The Warner girls denied it. She SAYS he
choked her in the bedroom. He denies it.
She says he hit her with a cane, and he adj
mltted it to the Mays, but denies ii here. If
he had not choked her. why did he not
deny it to the Mays when it was talked over.
He was seen with his hand upon her, but did
not deny using violence toward his wife.
Then was the time TO deny it.
Mr.. Wellington will resume his argu-
ment this morning.