The sun., 1892-02-10
THE BARON'S VERSION OF 1T.
WITNESSES WHO SAY HE WAS n
MUCH-ABUsED NOBLEMAM

Home-Re Was Good to His Children. hut
They Fenred Their Mother-The Case IL
Closed. but the Decision OF tho Court
May Not he Announced for . Month.
Sioux FALLS Feb. 9-The suit OF the Bar
oness De Stuers for divorce was closed to-day.
and all that now remains is for the Judge to
read several hundred pages OF dispositions and
to reach his decision. The Court has allowed
twenty days us the time in which all deposit
tions are to be on lle here. and before leaving
the city he said that he could not hope to reach
decision within month. He has in his
Office hundreds Of pages OF evidence in various
divorce cases. and all must be taken in turn.
SO crowded. in fact. is the court with work
TINT n number of tho smaller divorce cases
have been turned over to the tender mercies Of
referee.
Tho Court admitted testimony on the plain.
tifrs financial condition. remarkine that 1t
would have bearing on her ability to support
the children. Mrs. De Stuers smiled sweetly at
this rcmark. and said:
II am worth about q million. can support
my daughter without serious strain on my re.
sources"
Tho attorneys for tho Baron arc already say
ing that In case decree OF divorce is granted
they will appeal to the Supreme Court. They
say they have suffered because the Court re-
fused to allow them to amend their answers SO
as to charge the adultery Of the plaintiff with
ZborowsN. aud because the Court would not
admit evidence intended to show that Mrs
Dc Stuers left her husband to get divorce that
she might marry Zborowski. They assert also
that they were forced to trial before they were
ready. The Court insisted that all the deposit
tions be ready in open court and the lawyers
began the work. After two hours OF reading,
however. the huge pile OF paper had been re-
duced but little. and It was arranged to put
tho dispositions III evidence without reading
thcm.
%; the deros itions yet to come in one is from
testify a to the plaintiffs extremely nervous
s9ndiion t w when he saT ~ her in June. 1880 and
Ss.or $arsy . Bostoa Of Mrs Hsnes WSitey, Whhiey
side s;e, Carey n , Of Bost9H oi Astor Chanler and
neys John 4. castle and Fordham not Of New in. YORK
are not yet received. The defence will try to
Of money to the Baron il he would not Contest
the divorce. and that the Baron has never Mt
any time made an effort to get control Of his
Baron y3n iIescker Ven kel. Minister resi- resi-
secretary OF the legation in Paris in 1886. and
breakfasted daily with the family. He says he
brandy. and red pepper. although her husband
II, 1887 Mrs. De stuers began saying so many
f$Pf ne Ass shs S5fsa
said improper things before her children.
vans is of trt tHe 4hsE
De stners family; NIrss; De stuers. he says.
ment., The Baron had rubber bands put en-
once. at dinner; tho death Of Count, sei!srn
Gountfpss rs selern is Iucsier than because
troduced TO prominent Dutch ladies' the Baron
ess would laugh in their faces.
Mrs; De- stucrs: upon reading the despatch.
other. and then tesan to dance and continued
danenx til q, oSoek in the m9snnE
md over 100 hats. The Barons salary. no
so9 per ae
eomreled to do 4" US She al answered. II would
be capable OF killing myself in moment Of
Tie my the the
as Grs : hs s' wtness s sdds
that Mrs. De stuers had offered to pay well for
testimony favorable to her case. n
money was offered to her to testify for the
~ 'udTleS NHuIerS. mem Der Oh tne DelRlan
Academy of Arts. painted picture Of the
Baron. Speaking Of this. Mrs. De Stuers said.
sarcastical!y:
You have succeeded in reproducing his dis
/. Ansermet. a butler in the service OF Baron
De Stucrs. was asked to go before a lawyer to
testify for Mrs. DO Stuers. and was told that 1t
would he profitable. He refused to 60.
On the question of the medical examination.
one Of the physicians who was present on Juno
13 1890. test ies that there was no intention
OF putting the plaintiff in an asylum nor to
In tnl
the doctor that she had never loved her hus-
band. and that she married him. after refusing
two others. to get away from an unhappy
home, She said she was not crazy:
husband. He SAYS she had some faint
ing, tltS. and that it was dangerous
for her children to be with her He speaks Of
u letter from DIR. Weir Mitchell Of New York.
written on Nov. 27. 1883. who thought that the
plaintiff was in immediate danger OF mental
breakdown: 1T is simply absurd" says the
witness. that Baron De Stuers had any inten-
tion Of incnrcerating his wife lie knew very
well that she was going to leave on the 18th.
and he did not in any way object to her depart
ure.'