The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1892-03-18
is MARRIAGE A FAILURE?
so WILLIAM WILLIAMS SEEMS
TO HAVE FOUND IT.
He Tells the Story of His Marital
Misery---The Famous Divorce
Case Opens.
A VERY NOVEL AND RAcY RECITAL.

A VERY NOVEL AND RAcY RECITAL.
The court room was sparsely filled at
the morning session Of the circuit court,
when the case OF Williams versus Will
Jams, was taken up, The youth and
beauty OF Rapid City were not present,
but John BEGAN Ryan and Frank P.
Williams were there, representing the
large eastern dailies, through which we
may expect to receive some spicy divorce
reports in connection with this case.
Joseph B. Gossage OF the journal also
occupied a seat at the reportorlal table,
kindly provided, for the press, by Judge
Fuller.
During the afternoon a ripple OF ex-
element was caused by the entrance Of
Miss Nettle Boyd, the fair maiden with
whom the UNION reporter had au inter-
view yesterday. The universal COM
ment on the artistic taste of the report
er, was most favorable, even MI. Cos
sage declared that the report was far
from overdrawn, while Mr.. Williams
toasted his eyes on the beauty, utterlng
such ordinations as "by George"
Mr.. Patrick Cox, the brother OF Mrs.
Eliza Theresa Williams the defendant
in this case, who took upon himself the
arduous duty Of annihilating the UNION,
because it spoke favorably o fMiss Boyd,
was also there.
Francis H. Clarke, Judge A. w. Bangs,
James Boyd and James w. Fowler, rep
resent the plaintiff and Charles w.
Brown the defendant.
Among those noticed in the court room
during the afternoon were Tom Sweeney,
M. Keliher, DR.. Flick, Fred Holcomb,
Judge Gardner, E. Cuthbertson, Charlie
Fallon, Judge Lake, Gene Holcomb, L.
C. Trowbridge, w. o. Temple.
The case opened with an application for
continuance for one month by defendants on
the ground of Mrs. Williams illness in Usage
county, Iowa, A telegram and affidavit were
received this morning by Charles w. Brown,
from J, M, Whitney NJ. d., stating that she
could not attend owing to an attack of the
prevailing malady. Judge Fuller denied the
application stating that Judge Gardner was
disqualified from sitting on the ca e and that
he was compelled to return to his own circuit
but he would hold the case open until the
last moment to receive the oral testimony Of
Mrs. Williams should she materialiZe before
he leaves. Exception was taken to this rul-
ing, Mr.. Brown contending that her presence
was absolutely necessary to the proper con-
duct Of the case. The court ordered the case
to proceed,
Francis II. Clarke opened the case by read
ing the pleadings. The complainant alleges
| that he is and has been for ten months a resi-
dent Of Pennington county, South Dakota,
second, that Mrs. Williams is a resident of
New Haven, Usage county, Iowa, third, that
plaintiff and defendant intermarried at Roches-
ter, N. Y, in July, 1877, and lived together
there as husband and wife until 1884, that
there is no issue of said marriage, that both
defendant and plaintiff are each forty-three
years old, that defendant did, in 1884, wilfully
desert plaintiff and has every since continued
such desertion, that she refused to have
matrimonial intercourse with plaintiff until
1887 and that during these three years they
occupied different apartments, that defendant
was extravagant making his home extremely
uncomfortable and showing a settled aversion
to him, that about August 1857 plaintiff in
vited defendant to live with him but that she
wilfully and voluntarily deserted him and has
never lived with him since, that plaintiff has
always been a gentle and loving husband, that
he has always been true to his marriage VOWS
and obligations and that he has never con-
doned defendants desertion.
In her second amended answer the defend
ant denies each and every allegation Of plant
if complaint except in SO far as relates to
date of marriage and age of plaintiff and de-
PENDANT. That they lived together as husband
and and wife until August, 1887, that at that
time plaintiff deserted defendant without
cause or reason; that plaintiff never sought
reconciliation; that defendant had always OBJ
served her marriage vow and was always
willing to perform all Of her marital VOWS;
that within one year she had asked plaintiff
to live with and be a husband to her; that
they are both residents of the state of New
York and that neither one of them have ever
been a resident Of South Dakota; that between
the first day Of October, 1890, and the first
day of April, 1891, plaintiff at diverse times
at No. 341a Chatham street, committed adul-
try with Nettie Boyd; that beginning Septem-
Der I, 1887, in the Office Of Williams & Hoyt,
in Rochester, New York, at No. 20 Chestnut
street, at the latter house in Charlotte, New
York and at other places at diverse times;
that plaintiff committed adultry with Nettie
Boyd; that his adulterous connection with
said Nettie Boyd was open and notorious and
she was kept and cared for by him as his mis-:
tress; that she is destitute, etc.
After reading the complaint and answer:
attorney Clarke made a short statement to
the court as to what the plaintiff expected to
prove and in doing SO, denied several Of the
allegations of the defendants answer and pro-
ceeding, said in substance: The defendant
had a servant girl whom we will show, exer-
cised a great influence over the defendant, we
will show that they were both religious fanat-
les, that the girltold her that she had left her
last place on account Of the Virgin Mary ap-
pearing to her and telling her to quit'the en-
ploy Of a Protestant family, that defendant
finally in 1884 told plaintiff it would be sinful
to have matrimonial intercourse with one
who was not a Catholic and that she there
after persistently refused to cohabit with him
as his wife.
William Williams was then put on the
stand and examined by attorney Clarke. In
L