Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-01-10

and MIR. HilleS was compelled to give |
way for the present with the hope OF
victory later on.
Mr. Ward resisted the motion of Mr.. |
Hilles to quash the rule, and held that it
was case in which the Court had
jurisdiction to hear the argument.
The Court, after consultation, declined
to quash the rule, and counsel for Mr.
Addicks was told to proceed with the
argument. Thereupon Mr.. Lodge began
reading the specifications Of the libel
for divorce which have already been
printed in THE GAZETTE. Mr. Lodge
then took up the affidavit, which asks
the Court to compel the petitioner, Mrs.
Addicks, to file bill of particulars,
and which, like the libel, has also been
given to the public.
The affidavit sets forth the fact that
the charges of adultery are alleged at
different times and ut places widely di
yergent in the United States aud that in
order to deny all the accusations it is
necessary for the respondent to meet
each and every charge in the petition
for libel.
The espondenttherefore asks that the
petitioner be compelled TO specify more
fully her grounds for divorce and that
the language OF the allegations be set
out in terms more explicit than is the
case in this particular. Mr.. Lodge then
began the citation of long list of
authorities in support of the motion to
compel the petitioner to file bill of
particulars.
The whole basis of Mr.. Lodges argu-
ment was this, that the respondent
should not be compelled to meet each and
every charge Of adultery as set forth in
the libel unless the charges are distinctly
setforth and more explicitly enumerated.
| This would render it extremely difficult
to procure evidence to repute the
| charges made by Mrs. Addicks. In
other words the respondent claims the
right 70 demand q bill Of particulars,
| and regards it as d hardship to be
compelled to scour the county over to
produce evidence denying the allega-
tions in the petition for divorce. If on
the other hand, bill of particulars is
filed, clearly outlining the grounds for
| divorce the respondent will be fully adj
| yised as to the nature of the charges he
| has to meet. If the rule for bill of
particulars is not granted, Mr.. Addicks
will be compelled to meet allegations
covering period of eight years, and
will be compelled to refute charges of
| intidelity represented as having taken
place from Maine to Brandywine hun
dred. This, he said, would be un-
reasonable and would be an lntolerable
burden to the respondent Mr.. Lodges
argument occupied nearly the whole of
the morning session. lie finished at
1895 o'clock.
William s. lIilles then began arguing
in behalf of Mrs. Addicks. He began by
saving that counsel for Mr.. Addicks had
erred in asking for bill of particulars
in this case. He contended that the Cen
eral Assembly in 1873 passed a statute
requiring divorce cases to be heard be-
fore a commissioner and since then that
had been the practice in Delaware.
The evidence is submitted to a
commissioner who makes his return
to the Court. When the award of the
commissioner is made, Mr.. Hillcs con-
tended that it is then the privilege of
either of the parties to the divorce to file
exceptions to the award, which are then
argued by the Court. If any injustice
has been done the respondent by the
petitioner in the libel for divorce, the
proper time to file exceptions to the
award is after the commissioner has
made his return. Mr.. Hilles argued that
there was no practice in the Delaware
court which gave the judge common
law jurisdiction in divorce cases. Mr..
Hllles was interrupted Mt l O'Clock, when
court took recess until 2.3O o'clock.
ADDICKs GOES TO DOVER.
1t was learned that Mr.. Addcks was
unable to be present at the argument
owing to an emergency recurring his
attention at Dover He left Wilmington
for the State capital on the afternoon
traiil. Besides his counsel, Mr.. Addicl1s
was represented ut the hearing by
William ii. Miller of Philadelphia, sec.
retary and treasurer Of the Bay State
Gas Co. Mr.. Miller is also connected
with number of corporations in which
Mr.. Addicks is Interested. lie came
down to Wilmington in response to 4
telegram from Mr.. Addicks citing his
inability to be present at the argumen
in the divorce case.
! Mrs. Rosalie B. Addicks created somt
, surprise in the superior court Monday
afternoon when she went on th'
stand and told the Court all she knew
: about MIR. Addicks' financial affairs anc
the amount of wealth he is supposed tc
|, have at his command. 1t was not gener
= ally known that Mrs. Addicks was to &C
r on the witness stand at all and when th'
: name of the petitioner was called inter
est in the proceedings, ii anything, wa
intensified.
As soon as court resumed in the after
, noon Mr.. Hilles went on with his argu
i ment in opposition to the motion of Mr.
v Addicks' counsel to compel the peti
, TONER to file bill Of particulars. He
contendGd that the court in cxercisin!
s its statutory power had not the power II
grant bill of particulars and cited
number of authorities going to prov
T. the irregularity of the respondents ap
pication. He said that the name of TN
petsDn and the place where the occur
i renee is alleged to have happened i
sufficient in libel for divorce and tina
{ the time Of the alleged occurrences meet
4 not be specified. ..-
Il Mr.. Hilles was followed by II. S
: Cattcll, associate counsel in the case
! who confined his argument TO review
l. Of the allegations in the bill of particu
o lars. The authorities, he said had beel
l. fully cited by Mr.. Hilles. In Pennsyl
vania the libel requires a mere state
/. ment of the cause Of action. The re
If spondent has the right TO go before til
1t court or have his case heard by a com
Ie missioner. In this case he said he di
1t not think any hardship had beed place
t. upon the respondent. The allegation
II in the libel, he thought, were speciil
ID enough. The occurrences are allege
le to have taken place ut the respondent
home at Claymont; at the Mt. Kline