The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-09-09


quite number of ladies prominent in
the social world being called to tes-
tify that Mrs. Griffin was not addicted
10 the liquor, morphine or tobacco hab-
its, and the evidence on the point was
very strong.
MRS. PYLES DEPOSITION.
The reading of the dispositions of Mrs.
L. a. Pyle of st. Paul was concluded
yesterday morning shortly after the
converting of court. The main part of
the testimony was to the effect that
Mrs. Pyle had never. seen Griffin use
personal violence against his wife. She
had never told Griffin that the actions
CT his wife were peculiar, and she did
not think Mrs Griffin addicted to the
use Of intoXicantS or narcotics. When
Mrs. Pyle visited the home Of the Crit
fms in this city she brought with her a
flask of whisky that she carried when
travelling for medicinal purposes. This
stood on the manteI at the Griffin resi-
dence in the room occupied by Mrs
Pyle during her stay, and when her
visit had concluded it had not been
touched, though at all times in plain
view of Mrs. Griffin. Had never heard
Mrs. Griffin refer to her husbands peo-
pie as farmers" Mrs. Griffin had adj
mitted to her that she sometimes
smoked cigarettes but upon being up
braided for this had promised to quit
the habit. Never knew of her drinking
at all.
SUMMERER RECALLED.
One Summerer, who wSs employed by
the Grif1ins in July, 1895, was then re-
called to the stand. About the first of
July, 1895, Griffin, he said, went away
~ h1,r-xv hi fat
time Mrs. Dixon was a visitor to the
Griffin home. He denied in toto the ef-
forts to establish by his testimony that
Mrs. Griffin or Mrs. Bower We're intox-
icated upon their return from a visit to
the lake a few days previous to the 4th
Of July.
DR.. MARY E. VAN,
The lady physician and expert on fe-
male diseases was probably the most
important witness of the forenoon. She
is a graduate of the University OF
Michigan medical department. She first
met Mrs. Griffin in 1894, and treated her
professionally from Nov. Is, 1895. to
January, 1896. She had never known
her to drink. The doctor then de-
scribed the ailment from which Mrs
Griffin suffered-one peculiar TO her sex
She frequently made examinations OF
the patient, bat she bore no evidences
of being a drinker, and was not treated
for alcoholic bloat. Mrs. Griffin's was
an aggravated case. She received re-
lief but could not say that it was per-
manent. Mrs. Griffin was at her office
twice a week during the time indi-
catedl and slpon enc occasion the doctor
questioned her in reference to her
drinking, and was informed that there
we're at this one time only indications
of alcoholism. Were she IN the habit
of drinking to any extent the physician
was positive she could detect it. She
had often met Mrs. Griffin on the
streets, but on no occasion was there
any indication Of her having INDUCED
in alcoholic spirits.
SAMUEL CHITTOCK
Had know Mrs. Griffin for five years,
and during the time had met her on ar
average of once OF twice a dav. She
had never appeared to him as at any
time under the influence of liquor He
was at the Griffin home at various
times. and once when Griffin was Ill
Mrs. Griffin had also visited his home
Charles Onuzit, another neighbor &c thf
Griffins. testified substantially as die
Chittock. Then
DIR. PAYNE WAS RECALLED.
He stated that upon his visit here
he went to see Griffin and asked the
latter if he had talked to the neighbors
in regard to Mrs. Griffin's drinking
and the habits of his (Griffins) wife
Griffin replied that ne had not, the rea.
son being that most all of his neigh
bors, mentioning several prominent
families, We're "blankety blank society
people, and would tell blankety blank
lies" None of them could or would
tell him the truth. In reply to an in
terrogation Of opposing counsel, tn.
doctor said he had not mentioned these
things in his testimony of the day pre-
vious for the reason he was not asked
TO, but was shut off. His testimony
was concluded with a statement of the
amount he ordinarily earned profes.
sionally.
TWO GOOD WITNESSES.
Stewart Stephenson had been to the
Griffin home two or three times FOL
dinner together with his family, along
with Mr.. and Mrs. Montgomery and
others. There was never anything in
Mrs. Grif1in's conduct to indicate al
any time that she was under the in.
fuence of liquor. There was never
any wine on the table, not even at the
stag dinner on the occasion OF
when he was there Mrs. Griffin drove
one or two Of her guests home in a
cart. He had seen her on various oc-
casions at her home, on the streets and
his own home AT no time was she
drinking. When these dinners were
given he was at the Griffin home from
early in the afternoon until evening
after dark.
Susanna Roxbury, who did Mrs
Griffin's laundry work for two sum-
merS had lived adjacent to and known
Mrs. Griffin for FIVE or six years. Hei
testimony in relation to the alleged
drinking habits of Mrs. Griffin was
much in line with that of Stephenson
She was often at the house and Mrs
Griffin often called TO see her on bust
ness, but she never as much as de.
tected the smell of whisky or brandy
Had Mrs. Griffin been a drinker sht
would have known it.
MISS AMUNDsEN.
Miss Alice Amundsen aged Il, testi
fed in reply to Judge Young that sht
lived with the Griffin family as 6
domestic servant in 1894, for about siS
weeks. Knew them before then; lived
near and sold milk TO them, frequently
delivered the milk al the house; alst
lived with them in the summer of 1897
for about six weeks during the schoo
vacation. Never saw Mrs. Griffir
drunk, never saw her under the in
fiuence of liquor, never saw her drink
take opium or smoke. About July OF
8, 1895. Mrs. Griffin went out to tbs
lake with a party. They went to ths
depot on the street car and the hireC
man Sommerer brought them back il
the carriage. Witness saw Mrs
Griffin when she returned: she was no
drunk and had no appearance of hay
ing been drinking.
(This testimony was in direct confiic-