Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-04-04

Prince Michael Offers an Un-
expected Defense
THROUGH HIS Willy ATTORNEY
II Is Alleged That Mrs. Nils Is Trying
70 Get His PrcPerty-The Judge
Inferferc5.

Dxrsorr. April 3.-Colonel Akin
sons motion for the dissolution OF the
Injunction restraining Primes"
Michael Mills from dlsposing OF MS
property, Was taken up yesterday Dy
Judge Gartner. j. W. Robbins, attor-
ney for Mrs Mills, objected TO hear
ing At that time on the ground that be
had been served with notice OF the
motion 50 late that he aad had but an
hour and = half to prepare for argu-
ment. Without waiting for any de-
cision on his opponents objection the
colonel launched into his argument.
After reading Mills answer. be drew
the deduction that Mrs. Mills sole OBJ
lect Was to gam possession OF tue
princes property.
"Eyery step taken has tended to show
this" ne reasoned. lit was Tor this
purpose that he was arrested and that
his friends, likewise, were thrown into
prison under the pretense that they
were wanted as witnesses. As soon As
he had been placed behind the bars oil
q cell, his wife aud her attorney hast
aud all it contained. The bill for dl-
yorce followed and il il remarkable
that IN It the charge of adultery which
had been made for the purpose or the
AIRED were wholly Loaf sight of. Then
CAME this Injunction by whose opera
ton the defendant might rot IN jail be-
cause OF his inability TO secure securi-
ties on bail bond. Ii Was not as de-
cent proceeding As thu Perrlen case,
for IN that transaction . decoy letter
letter WAS used, and IN tins process OF
this court. don't ask the complete
dissolution of the injunction. though |
might, but only that 1t be 90 modified
As TO give the defendant chance 10
procure bail"
Entisied to Onlv = Portion.
Mr.. Robins again asked that he be
gwen more time. lie said he wished
to introduce sftidsv,ts in support of the
charges of cruelty.
WHAT difference could that maker"
asked Judge GARNER. "You do not
MAINTAIN that even though the defend
ant were guilty of all the charges all
OF his property should be- tied up be-
youd his reach? HIS wife is entitled to
only . portion OF It."
= Mr.. Robbins agreed that this was the
onlv correct view.
This case must not be distinguished
from any other because OF the notor-
iety 1t has gained" SAID his honor, "all
men stand equal before the law, and
this man, like all others, is enntled 70
the strictest justice."
I'VE are willing to give it to him."
said Mr.. Robbins.
There Is no question of willingness"
declared HIS honor. at 10 his right.
He is entitled To il and he must have
it. The court has no right TO regard
the notoriety Of his case. lie may be
q bad man and perhaps he ought to be
In prison. l may have . strong private
opinion about the matter myself. But
IN spite of all these things he must,
under the law, be treated AS any other
litigsnt would be-"
The judge concluded by ordering
such . modification of the injunction
a. would enable Mills to secure suretles
on bail bond by any means that he
had.
Two men had already consented to
become sureties, but when Colonel
Atkinson had everything in readiness a
little later IN the day, they declined,
although there was no risk for them
IN the transaction.