Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-11-18
TESTIMONY DIFFERS
A Bigamy Case With Sensational
Features.
MRS. COLLIN
The Defendant Denies the Testi-
mony Of Everybody.
r E V E r E n D WITH ESS
VEREND WITNESS

cCmely, middle-aged woman, was placed on
trial before Judge Cox in Criminal Court
No. today, charged with bigamy 1t
was claimed that the defendant married
Charles B. McCanna January 26. 1885, in
Baltimore, and without having been legally
separated welded Robert NJ. Frost in this
city August 3, 1892.
The case has been well known for some
time past. 1t first was brought to the atten-
ton of the public when Robert NJ. Frost
entered suit for divorce from his wife on
the ground of adultery. The couple had
one child, which was in st. AIMS Infant
Asylum at the time, and further notoriety
was given the matter when Mrs Frost
secured possession of the child by writ of
habeas corpus. 1t is still in her custody
and is known as Goldie Marie Frost.
The publication of these proceedings
brought Charles b. McCanna to the front,
and he declared that Mrs Frost was his
legal wife. Charges were filed and the
Indictment for big amy followed.
The fact that both the alleged husbands
would testify, well as the priests who
had performed the marriage ceremonies
one of the priests having refused to testify
at the preliminary hearing in the Police
Court-attracted a large crowd of specta-
tors to the court room today. Assistant
District Attorney Je!fords and Mr.. Her.
bert NJ. Locke conducted the prosecution
while Mr.. Hosea b. Moulton and Mr.. VIM.
The First Husband.
Charles B. McCanna, the first witness,
testified that he met Margaret A. Collins in
January, 1854, at a ball in Georgetown,
Shortly thereafter they began to live to-
gether, and January &C. 1885, went to Bal
timore and were married by Father Mac
kin. The witness stated that shortly after
the ceremony was performed he went on a
spree, and did not get over it for two days.
Several years after the marriage, the wit
ress stated, his wife had him sent to the
Workhouse for vagrancy. After that he did
not see her but twice in six years. They
had but one child, which died. In the
cross-examination the defense endeavored
TO show that McCanna, while in an intoXi-
Gated condition, January 26, 1855, took a
woman other than Margaret Collins before
Father Mackin in Baltimore, represented
her to be Margaret Collins, and married
her.
Marriage to Frost.
After several unimportant witnesses had
testified, Father F. McAtee, now of Wood
stock. Nd but formerly of St Aloysius'
Church. this city, was called, and stated
that he married the defendant and Robert
NJ. Frost at St. Aloysius' Church. August
5, 1892.
Attorney Cook asked how the marriage
was performed
According to a dispensation from the
Where is that dispensation?"
Among my papers-it is of a private &C.
ciesiastical nature"
DO you mean to say that there are any
circumstances connected with marriage
that cannot be made public?" queried the
attorney.
There are certain enactments of the
church that overrule law" declared the
priest
Attorney Cook asked If a marriage license
had been issued authorizing the ceremony,
and a heated discussion followed between
Mr.. Jeffords. Mr.. Cook and Father McAtee,
but it was cut short by Judge Cox ruling
that marriage could be valid whether a
license was issued or not 1t was brought
out, though, that license did not figure in
the case, the ceremony taking place accord
ing to the Catholic ritual-the consent Of
the parties.
Did you know that the defendant was a
married woman at the time you claim to
have married her to Mr.. Frost?" next
asked Mr. Cook.
DO you think I would have married her
II had known she was not single?" rather
tartly replied the priest. He then remarked
that the marriage was valid.
by what authority?' said Mr.. Cook,
sharply.
by authority of law" was the equally
sharp answer
1.-The law of the state" Father McAtee
attempted to explain what he meant. but
Attorney Cook interrupted to say:
Il didn't ask you for any occult and mys-
terious law. which is not an American law"
1T is an American law" retorted the
witness.
The district attorney objected, and the
court raped for order.
After the priest had stated that II was
against the law of the church to produce
the record Of the marriage Mr.. Cook asked
that the court order its production, but
Judge Cox ruled that any witness is COM
petent to prove a marriage and as Father
McAtee was present and performed the
ceremony his testimony was sufficient. The
witness stated that child was born to
riage.
Frost Testifcs.
Robert NJ. Frost, one of the alleged hus-
bands, described the marriage and stated
that it was to protect the defendant and
their child. He had been living with the
former in adultery. He did not know that
she had husband living.
The prosecution at this point closed its
case, and a recess was taken.
In opening its case the defense called
Charles b. McCanna, one of the husbands,
and he testified that he had been confined
in Jail twice and in the workhouse twelve
or thirteen times. The sentences, he claim.
ed, were the result Of domestic trouble, his
vile teng the prosecuting witness in most
of the cases against him in the Police
Court.
She TestiGes.
The defendant then took the stand and
declared that she was never married to
McCanna. that she never went to Balti-
more with him, and, in fact, she has not
been in Baltimore during the past twenty
years. She has known McCanna about ten
years, but never lived with him, and al
though he spoke of their having a child,
the witness declared that McCanna was
not its father The witness also stated that
the child. known as Goldie Marie Frost, is
not Frost's daughter, and further said that
she saw Father McAtee but once, and was
not instructed by the priest for marriage.
She went to the church once to confess
sion, but knew nothing of a marriage cere-
IRONY. These statements were in direct
&C ntradiction Of the testimony Of Father
NcAtee.
The defendant declared that she has been
married but once, and then to a Mr.. Col
Lns, now deceased. She has had nine chill
dren two since the death of Collins. After
the witness denied that certain signatures
to papers in the divorce proceedings were
n nade by her. although the papers were
sworn to before a notary public, the de-
oil q n