The morning call., 1894-11-21

complaint, In which the fact of KusseIrs
marriage with the plaintiff was denied.
on the ground that at the time the cere-
mony took place the plaintiff was already
married to one c. A. Lord. The record of
divorce proceedings in the courts of So
noma County, in which Eva /. Lord sought
freedom from c. a. Lord, and was denied
that privilege, was introduced in support
of this new con tentlOn.
George A. Knight, acting or behalf of
Mrs. Russell, took up the challenge, and
when proceedings were resumed yesterday
morning the attorney flied on behalf of his
client an amended answer to RusselPs
amended cross-complaint, IN which Mrs.
Russell denied her marriage with Lord
and insisted that she was the lawful
| spouse of the defendant. Russell. Then
Knight, acting upon the new contention
set u by lis adversaries. moved to strike
out all the testimony introduced by Rus
sell concerning his wife's alleged infideity.
Knight urged that if Russell contended
there was no marriage all such evidence
| introduced by him was utterly immaterial
and irrelevant.
Dorm objected to the striking out of this
testimony. He refused. however, to state
his grounds for so objecting.
Judge Murphy inquired of Dorm with a
! troubled cOuntenance whether he Dorm
expected him (Judge Murphy to pass upon
all this evidence of infideli Y. IF So"
said his Honor. this will raise another
grave doubt in my mind" His Honor.
however. did not state what that dou bt
was.
Dorm explained that while he did not
| rely upon the evidence in question and did
not depend on 1t. yet he would prefer that
1t remain in the record for various reasons.
Judge Murphy unused awhile and then
| said: II will frankly say at this iuncture
that after seeing these witnesses called by
Mr.. Russell and hearing their testimony |
am not inclined to put any faith in it, In
fact, don't believe a word of it,"
mo more do l." courteously replied
| Dorm, seeing that the court had its mind
| made up on that score.
SIN fact" resumed the JUDGE think it
is an insult-not perpetrated by counsel
| nor Mr.. Russell, however, but nevertheless
an insult-tbat such miserable creatures as
these should be permitted to come in to a
courtroom in order to tarnsh the reputa-
Ton OF woman. Not word of their
| testimony do | believe. However, / will
deny the motion to strike out their testi
moDy, but my decision on this point will
not be at all harmful to the interests of
| this plain tiff "
Dorm consulted moment with his
CliouI duu lueu stdttu tNaf, QnQer the cir
Gums stances, and seeing how his Honor's
nina lay in respect to this testimony. be
would withdraw his objections to the
striking out of the testimony, and would
consent that it be eliminated from the
record. And so, with one fell swoop.
away went the testimony of such distin
guished experts as Henri |. Stuart. M.
| Levoue, L. w. Allen and Sol BerIiper. as
well as the sums of money paid them for
| their Services"
George knight wanted the testimony of
other witnesses as to Mrs Russel's acts of
cruelty toward her husband struck ont
also, but that wouldn't 60 Judge Muir
ply denied this request.
John B. Russell was then mt on the
stand to testify to the receipt Of an anony-
nous letter received by him in .Iune last
Russell was under the impression that il
came from his wife. The letter was pro
duced and read in evidence as follows:
SAN FRANCISCO, June %. 1894.
Mr.. Russell: II i nave ever Wronred or of
tended you in any way | am sorry and hone
You will forgive me. BERTHA REST
Russell was asked a few questions re-
specting alimoEy. Hessaid he had paid
$240 ID weekly payments of $40 10 his
wife. He had never left her without
money. Then the defendants hour of
trial was over and Mrs. Russell took the
stand. Mrs. Russell said she mad been
! three weeks without money since the be.