Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-02-29
Yellow eyes,
A CARD FROM MR.. DEPUTRoY
To the Editor ofths Alexandria Gazette:

" LHC 1SuItOI VI Wv <1tI~t'tt+f tth pu@ctLr.
Sir:-I do not believe in washing
ones soiled linen in public nor in the
discussion of ones family affairs in the
newspapers, experience having taught
me that as rule no good is accom-.
plished thereby and that only disagree
able and Improbable notoriety results,
In view, however, of the communca.
ton signed by Viah w. Bsggett, which
appeared in your edition Of the 26th
inst. and in which the writer endeayor.
ed to square herself with the public by
stating that the decree of divorce
granted to me by the District Court for
the Fifth Judicial District of New
Mexico, in January 1896, in the suit of
Eustace G. DePutron vs.. Viah W.
DePutron was based upon the ground
of abandonment alone, and that the
charge of adultery was disproved, feel
constrained to state as briefly as
possible some of the pertinent facts in
the case. In the first place, the decree
on the ground of abandonment was not
based on the evidence adduced during
the tendency of the suit, but was the
result of q compromise effected BY the
parties to the suit and their respective
counsel. The Master in Chancery
who took the testimony in New Mexico,
in his report based upon the testimony
of disinterested witnesses whose cred.
bility was not impeached expressed
the opinion that the charge of adultery
had been proven, and recommended
that q decree be granted on that
ground. He also reported to the court
that the charge of abandonment (Which
abandonment consisted of the respond.
emit having been placed on the train
and sent home by meg as not proven.
However, for reasons that l need not
discuss here, l was refused decree by
the court on the ground OF adultery
and was compelled to accept a decree
on the ground of abandonment (?) or
else remain in chancery for an indef'
mite period, and, rather than do the
latter, / did what l presume most sen.
sible men would have done under like
conditions-took what | could get
The statement by the respondent that
the charge of adultery was disproved
and was thrown out of court is not true
That charge was not disproved, nor
was the evidence adduoed in support Of
it thrown out of court. The evidence
submitted by me on that point was
withdrawn by me as result OF the
compromise aforesaid. The fact IS
that the respondent offered no test.
mony whatever except that of herself
and the correspondent to rebut that
offered by me, and the correspondent,
q young man, admitted under oath in
his testimony taken in behalf OF the re-
spondent, that she had permitted him
to kiss her divers and sundry times o
statement which, while not in itself
sufficient to establish the charge Of
adultery, certainly was not calculated
to strengthen her side of the case.
The decree on the ground Of abandonment
was granted only by my consent and at the
earnest solicitation Of tho counsel for the re-
spondent ono Of the conditions under which
I accepted such decree being that the de-
fedant pay all of her own costa. a. tle &C.
Gandsc+ 80 .tjso TlS innocent Of the charge OIL
adultery, it must seem strange to the average
intelligent person that she was unable to fur
nish the testimony Of single disinteresiet
witnes, to prove her innocence; that her van
ous denials and cross bills were ignored, and
that tho decree was granted to me rather than
to her. her statement that the court permit
ted her to resume her maiden name Is true
When was asked to consent to that PROPOSE
ton readily did so, as had no wish that's
woman of her stripe should drag my nsns
further into the dirt than she had alresdT
done. What have here stated is borne du'
by the complete record of the case which
before me, and, in view of the history Of The
same, regard the respondents action ID
gratifying her penchant for getting intoi to;
newspapers as an unparalleled exhibition ~
cheek, to say the least, and trust that il viii
not DO necessary for me to publish the Eeccia
in full in order to end an unwsrranted c0niFo'
yersy. Hoping that you will accord tbs coI'
munication as prominent place i'll your vS'
liable paper as was given that to which 1t 80
response, am sir,
Yours very respectfully, +
&. C. DEPUTRoS.
Falls Church, Va, February 2S 1896.