The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-08-02
WHY JIM WAS KNOCKED OUT.
Points Against Him that Gave His Wife q
Divorce.

New York. Aug. Referee Edward
Jacobs opinion in full on the divorce Of
Mrs. James Corbett has been given out
and is as follows:
'sThe parties to this controversy were
married on the 2Sth day of June, 1886.
at Salt Lake City. in the Territory OF
Utah, and continued to live together as
husband and wife unt5l some time dur
ing the present year, when they sep
arated.
THE complaint charges the defend
ant with adultry, and the answer de-
MES the same. The proofs are that the
defendant was repeatedly seen in the
company of a woman named Vera
that she was present with him in the
dressing-roOm in theatres at which he
was performing, while he was dressing
for his part in the play.
THAT on a journey at night from
Cincinnati to St. Louis they occupied
together a stateroom in a sleeping-car;
they roomed toge Their in a hotel in Gin
cinrati, that the defendant repeated
" introduced Vera to members Of his
company and to others as his wife: That
at hotels in various places at which the
defendant and his theatrical company
stopped. the defendant and Vera regis
tered as Mr.. and Mrs. COrbett,' also.
james J. Corbett and wife
While IT is true that a divorce should
not be granted on mere suspicion and
must be founded upon facts which de-
monSsrate 70 the mind that the party
charged with the offense Of adurtry Is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, vet
this does not necessarily mean that d.
rect evidence Of the fact must be proven
Acts Of the nature charged are commit
ted in secret and not in public view, and
If the evidence tends 10 guilt 1t is suf-
ficient.
In the present case the links clearly
form an unbroken chain and lead the
mind TO the conclusion that the defend
ant did commit acts Of adultry with
the said Vera.
IN the case Of Chase VS.. Chase. d.
cided by Judge Russell in the supreme
court, special term, April, 1892, the learn
ed judge says:
The objection mat there was no d.
rect evidence Of adultry by the plaintiff
IS not sufficient 10 answer the findings
Of the referee. II X we're necessary 70
have ocular evidence OF the act few d.
vorces for this cause could be obtained
The evidence Of circumstances may be
holly and entirely SufFcia7t'
The case az hand falls directly with
in y-he rule laid down in the ca - cirei
Taking into consideration the facts
before referred To- VS.. that the defend
ant peatedly introduced Vera as his
WE. IlHA SAfr WIS 4tS~-IlL WIN nm
when he was dressing and undressing
in the dreSSiuC-room of the theatre a.
which he performed; their occupation Of
the same stateroom in 4 sleeping car:
roOrFing together in A hotel in Ci1-k--
nati. the conclusion Is irreSistahla that
the defendant committed acts of aSu1-
t.-y with the person named. and 3. FOL
lows consequently that the pIairtir =
entitled 70 the usual divorce in such
Ce-seS
with reference % the question II all,
n0ny. that is a matter which the pa
ties have agreed % adjust between
themselves. and this they have a right
70 do.
"Ry Their articles = separation. ~
tered ir--o March last Il was agreed "a.
IRE Defendant should pay . he plain
TT 500 per week during her natural
life
As 10 proof was o1s-e1 before -7e a
show rrs present fi2ar-E7i condition Y
the defendant. 7 mus regard the a.
ticies OF separation a. htcdiac. and -
commend taat tsle sl5r,ory yvhs-h -
parties have themselves fixed should %
continued
The referee fled with The opiao- 4 -
port. in which hs says:
Findings Of facts are: That ne 1ar-
ties 20 .his action we're married az Sal.
Lake City. Utah on the 18th day Q.