The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-02-04
BRIGGS DIVORCE CASE.
The Petition Denied in the Supreme
Court This Morning.
Mr.. BRIGGS THE ONLY WITNESS,
And His Statements Were Denied nv His
wife-Ihe Co<rt Thinks He Alta ched
too Much Importance to Little
Things-The Alleged Confession.

The petition OF GsorEe Briggs OF this
city, for a divorce from his wife. Mary
Ella Briggs, was denied in a rescript
handed down ia the Supreme Court this
morning.
The petition was brought on the charge
OF infdelity, which charge was based
mainly on n confession which Mr.. Bri sgs
clai med his wife had made 60 him, IN
w ich he alleged that she admitted the
existence Of criminal relations betweei
herself and Prof. Georges Lair, a teach r
of the French language, from whom
Mrs. Briggs was receiving a course OF III
struction.
Mr.. and Mrs. Briggs were married In
Detroit 1882 where Mrs. Briggs belonged.
aud took up their residence In this city,
where they stood high in social circles.
moving in the best society. IL appears
from the evidence given at the hearing
of the divorce petition that the married
life or the couple was lar from being the
D. identification of felicity.
The case was heard in the Supreme
Court on Thursday. Jan. IL, and the two
succeeding GAYS, before Chief justice
Matteson and Judges Stiness and Til;
linghast. Messrs. L. d.. Bassett and
James TillinGhase appeared for Mr..
Briggs and James NJ. Ripley
aad Arr old Greene for Mrs.
Briggs. The only direct testimony in
support Of the charges preferred in Mr..
Briggs's petition was that OF Mr.. Briggs
himself. concerning the confession which
he stated Mrs. Briggs made to him. The
material points in the said con ession
Briggs denied having made.
The Iiescript.
The court in its rescript says;
ITO justify the granting Of a divorce
IN fha sarinnZ ChQrUa contained in this
petition, it should be proved by compe-
tent and conclusive evidence.
1.-THE main testimony in support OF the
charge is that OF the petitioner to an
alleged confession OF it's truth. made TO
him by the respondent. GA the other
hand, though she admits That she has
committed indiscretions and improprie-
ties, denies by the testimony that she Is
guilty OF the criminal act charged against
her. and further denies that she ever
made the confession that she was so
guilty.
'T6e testimony Of the petitioner is cor
roborated in some unimportant particu-
lars by the testimony Of other wtnesse,.
The testimony of the respondent Is, like
wise, corrooorated by other evI fence.
The letters OF the respondent to the petit
TONER. unexplained, might seem also TO
support the charge. They appear, how
ever. to have been written In view of the
unhappy relations which existed between
the parties, aud the stroug expressions
in them relied on as evidences OF
guilt, may have been due rather
To a highly wrought state OF feeling
caused by such unhappy relations, for
which the respondent famed herself in
consequence OF The indlscretions and inn
pruprie.ies she had committed.
After n consideration of the whole
evidence we are not convinced OF the
truth of the charge. We are i%nclined TO
b lieve hat the petitioner, believing the
resp ndent to be guilty, has drawn in
terences from and put constructions on
the ad nil made TO him by the res
poudent concerning the indiscretions and
l~mproprietieS Of her conduct, which were
not fully warranted.
"No objection was male TO the admissa-
billy of the testimony Of the petitioner
as to the alleged confession OF the re-
spondent to him. We have. therefore.
considered the testimony as though il
were competent. We think, however,
that it is at least doubtful whether the
testimony was competent. While public
laws, X. l., chapter 5Sl, section |, per-
mits either party To a divorces TO testify,
il does not purport TO repeal or modify
the proviso contained In public statutes,
Rhode Island, chapter PA. section
30, to the effect that either
the husband OF wife shall he permitted
to give any testimony tending TO crimi-
nate the other, or 60 disclose any commu-
nication made TO the other during their
marriage. The only effect OF public laws
of Rhode Island, Chapter 5S1, Section l,
would seem to be TO strike out the words
except a petition for divorce contained
in the first clause OF pnblic statutes OF
Rhode Island, Chapter PA, Section SO.
1.-THE petition isdenied and dismissed"