Los Angeles herald., 1892-09-30
PARKER KISSED MRS LOWELL,
The Last Act in a Notable
Breach of Promise Case.
Matters Acted on in the Various
Courts Yesterday.
Some More testimony In the Parker
LEVEL suit-Oourt Notes-New
Cases-The Supervisors.
Marriage Licenses.

breach of promise case was presented
before Judge Van Dyke and the jury
yesterday. There was quite an increase
in the attendance of spectators, the
aeats outside the bar being well filled
by those who wished to see plaintiff
aged So years and defendant of "a in
such case. The sons and daughters o
the defendant occupied their usual
seats, and all the interested parties dis
played eager attention. when the defend.
ant was called to the stand by Mr.,
White, his attorney.
Mr.. Parker is quite hale old man,
barring little lameness in one of his
legs. which caused him to hobble with q
gcrutch. His hand trembled little az
he adjusted himself in his chair, and
calmly looked over his little domestic
world which has been go badly demoral-
lied by his second marriage. He did
not seem to observe in particular any OF
the grown up children before him, who
have seen him settle upon his second
wife the property which they had been
looking forward to as an addition to
their means when the old man should
die.
Mr.. White asked him specifically
about all the statements some of the
witnesses alleged he had made regard
ing his promise to marry Mrs. Helen NJ !.
Lowell, his deceased wife's sister. Mr..
Parker denied each one, and then de-
MED in general that he had ever made
any promise or agreement to marry Mrs.
Lowell. He said he had kissed the lady,
but he had done 30 many time before
his wife, her sister, had died. His
kisses were not more frequent after his
wife's death than before. He spoke of
the assistance be had given to Mrs.
Lowell and her daughter, Miss May
Lowell, and said it was not only once
but many times that he had assisted
them. He had known Miss May Low
ell since she was child, and dandled
her on his knee.
The plaintiff and her daughter has tes-
for the purchase of q house in Los An
geles. Miss Lowell testified that the
money was given to her and not to her
mother. In regard to this the de.
fsndant said that the money was
. gift to provide the mother with
a home. He did not care whether it
was in his niece's name or in her moth
er's, because If in the daughters it
might be thrown away by her husband
if she should marry.
On cross-examination Mr.. Munday
tried to get the witness to remember
that he took Thanksgiving dinner in
1890 at his daughters, Mrs. Brown, in
East Los Angeles, with Mrs. and Miss
Lowell, that being the day alleged by
Mrs. Lowell that he asked her to marry
him, but Mr.. Parker could not recollect.
lHaeeoact He IT, hs coud n6g g rscoecs sss f1s
number of conversations in which wit
ness had said he had referred to his
coming marriage with Mrs. Lowell.
Mr., White introduced the deeds by
which the defendant gave his property
to his present wife shortly after his mar
riage with her, and after he had been
told Mrs. Lowell was going to bring suit
against him. Mrs. Parker, the defend
ants present wife, also testified about
the deeds, stating that her husband had
given her the property to carry out an
agreement he made with her before her
marriage to him. This closed the testi-
mony on both sides.
The arguments in the case we're quite
lengthy. and were not concluded until
late in the afternoon. Mr.. Munday
made forcible presentation OF his case,
alleging that the defendant had not told
the truth about the matter. He had
promised to marry the plaintiff, and
had not kept his promise, for which he
should be punished by the jury. He
argaed that the evidence clearly showed
that Mrs. Lowell was an unmarried
woman at the time the promise was
made, and that she was entitled to have
the Jury fix an amount of damages, by
reason OF the defendants failure to do
what he said he would.
Mr.. White, in his argument. took
very positive position about the attitude
of the plaintiff and her allies. He said
that the suit was conspiracy on the
part of Mrs. Lowell and her daughter,
and of Mrs. Brown, the old mans
daughter, and one of his sons, to
get his property. He characterized
their attitude as disreputable and the
scheme as a blackmailing one. The de-
fendant was not under obligation to Mrs.
Lowell or her daughter to do anything
for them. But he had always been kind
to them. He had assisted them fre-
quently, and his last act was one of
kindness, when he carried out a promise
he made before his last marriage to assist
them by arranging to give them home.
He raised the money, $l40O, by a mort
gage.
At the time the defendant was doing
this, Mr.. White said, the complaint in
this case had already been sworn to.
But Mrs. Lowell and Miss Lowell held it
back, and did not file it until after Miss
Lowell had the $1400 in her possession.
They secured q slice Of the old mans
money, and now want to ruin him in his
old age. 1t was nothing but . specula-
ton, in which the plaintiff was aided
and abetted by one OF the
daughters and sons of the old
man. These. latter he character
lied as spectacle which it
was not good to see. The whole pro-
secution was one of the most cold
blooded, heartless proceedings he had
ever observed. At the very time the
woman and her daughter were taking
his money they had sworn to COM
plant against him. This was their
gratitude for his assistance in their
poverty and their hour of need.
In regard to Mrs.. Lovell's contract
marriage with man named Williams
in Missouri, Mr.. White said it was very
doubtful whether Mrs. Lowell had
shown that she was free to marry. She
had said she lived with Williams after
they made the contract, three weeks,
then che became doubtful aud tore her
contract up. But che lived with him
still until three months had gone by.
The only proof she showed that he was
married was 9 letter she saw in which
~ n ~