The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-06-13


day yesterday and dragged its weary
length into the evening. AT s.s5 yester-
day afternoon the court. after telling the
attorneys for the defense that be did not
care to hear any further evidence touch
ing tine question as 10 who furnished tne
means OF subsistence for the family. an
nounced that he wosii3 not adjourn TN
the case was ended The last witness was
examined al 6 o clock Al the conclusion
OF the arguments q decree OF divorce was
granted hs the court
There were a number OF incidents con-
neefed with yesterdays trial which made
Ii more than ordinarily interesting Soon
after the court r.coGvsned after the noon
recesE j sage Osborn. counsel for Mrs
Carpenter raised an objection 70 a aues-
ton which xas asked the defendant, who
occupied the witness stand in his own
behalf The court overruled the ohJec-
tson. Judge Osborn IN stating his opin-
ION as TO the proprfety OF the evidence,
which tended to throw discredit on Mrs
Carpenters character. referred to the
courts previous ruling on this Kind OF
evidence. Judge Jacobs, believing that
counsel was criticisiug his position. be-
came incenssa a, his remarks. and in the
/ controversy Numbered swift sit
DOWN TO the attorney The situation
was tense In the extreme. and from the
flush on the JUDGES cheek it was evident
that be had been deeply moved.
Judge Osborn immediately took his
seat. and after a mom.n; the court or
dered the witness TO proceed. When the
examination in chief had been concluded,
Judge Osborn rose and asked permission
10 address the court. Judge Jacobs said
lie would gladly hear counsel. whereat
Judge Osborn said In "A coneillatory tone:
II fear that my language a few min
utes ago may have led the court TO be-
at 4rsNass of mo
eriticisiug the courts ruling as to the ad-
instability uf certain evidence In this
ease. I want TO apologize to the court
for any such meaning my words con-
yeysd. and state that such was not my
intention. | simply desired to object to
the admission OF evidence touching the
character OF my client along lines indi-
Gated III the cross-eompiaint OF the de-
PENDANT, and which the court had already
ruled out I believed that there was an
abuse of the court by counsel for the
other side In trying 10 secure the admis-
sion of this kind of evidence after the
court had already ruled against II. 1t
was far from my desire to impugn the
attitude or ruling OF the court, or to in
dictate that ] believed his position on the
evidence had been reversed. IL any such
Intention was conveyed by the language
used. l wish to most humbly apologize
20 the court. whose relations with me
have always been OF the most friendly
nature. Never world Intentionally throw
discredi; on the court. nor fail To give to
the court that due respect and Difference
TO which II In entitled"
Interest In the woes of the Carpenters
was swept aside by this incident. The
words Of counsel were carefully chosen.
and II was evident that he felt the weight
of the situation and was DESTROYS of plac-
ing himself Alright before the court Judge
Jacobs said that he was glad 10 hear the
explain alton OF counsel and that he him
self might have spoken hastily. With that
the incident ended.
Throughout the examination of the wit
nesses Tor the defense reference was fire.
quently made TO charges OF adultery
against Mrs. Carpenter Carpenter swore
that she had admitted having had inter
course with a man who boarded at the
house. II became suspicious that all was
not right vbsn I noticed him paying her
an extra dl.lar az the end OF the week for
hls board" said the defendant on the
stand. Il demonstrated against this. and
soon after she confessed that he had taken
liberties with her. and had told her that
IL he had married her he could have done
much better by her than that cripple
At another time she made confession To
me Of what occurred with this same man.
Carpenter admitted that he had sworn at
his wife. hut denied having struck her
He said that she had often sworn At him.
Witness ascribed their domestic difficult
ties 60 her desire for advancement Ac-
cording 10 the husbands narrative his
wife claimed that her lineage was ariSto~
cratic and that he was dragging her down
instead OF helping her 10 improve their
station In life. She thought more OF the
things she wore and or her advancement
iu certain lines ~ personal cultivation
than 81 home building. She spent even
homo and frNarnGssffx~
ited q physician A. his oflce against his
protests
On cross-ex8nlnation. Judge Osborn
brought out the fast that he had lived
With his wtfc after the performance OF the
alleged iustistrefiouS- On this theory he
asked the court 70 strike ont all the tes-
timony az this character. Despite The OPP
position 81 counsel for thu defense the
motion Vas Aran'ed
judge osbofr's cross eX animation of the
defendant was severe Ira fhp ex-
treTne HE forced hsm 80 admit that he
had continued io reside Wits th~ woman
whose character ho had hlsckcnel IN his
eros@-rompl8fut after gt,s performance of
the acts complained of lie showed thu
defendant the complaint containing allie
EstoR~ ot larceny. adultery ana arson
Carpenter denied that he hsd made accu-
SALONS OF larceny ard arson against hts
wife hut threw the blame for these state
nents ou an attorney formerly connected
with the ca So. Tn0n J8aEe Osborn forced
him te aau't that he had not read the
erosa-compiaE although hls affidavit
tia; he hat read che allegations Was at
faehed 80 use document.
Several rey.vtusN showing that Mrs car
pcuscr bad p3ta the rent and other ex-
repses of she household WsYe brought IN
eyjeeuce
Mrs, e J. Noo3y testified that Mrs Car
penter had admit ~ psytre visits 20 i1r
Perrin nnd had taken psw in MS enter
tainments a. The Third Avenue thcatsr
= u Olson testified thst Mrs CArp,,a~
tors hrother had offered hlm g. 20 40 on
thn stand ana testify that he had seen the
defendant drums Dn cross-Axarain4tian
OLSON admitted thai he had been confined
jn Tho asylum ~ Stsilaccoyn tet,e. ard
tnA; en- oac DecaSloB he rad cursed Mrs
Carpenter. Counsel fer she defense asked
hsm 4 hss msna WAS all visht now arsi
$40 witness replied hat &; wasx as far -
Pc knew. Ia az tea witnesses were -
sfulnea tor tie eesenss. MOS; ~ the ,esfi-
u5orv relating - Carpenters efforts -
taske provision foe the support q ms
fsT7tiy.
The caSe sas roEr1ufess last evening" st
s - O'Clock. Judge Jacobs srArtea the 5f-
NavCe although Re he'd tast the wsf.s .
shsTses 80 drunkenness ara fatinrv 70 pFs-
Ntae Nny~ Hes proves. Ths docree Wa
granted cn grounds 81 rubi.c gols-v 20.
cause 70 Ect~: Tarnsse was ta ha sab
serves E-y Keeping go 1s1F tezataer "a
usSn as wtfe whea u wa-s Impossible fer
them - H%a AsgNi,& ,~kct&eg
Ths c@tsrs hs}a further fhA1 tee ettfrv~ 80
hAA ro> proven ghAt CArpcDtsg NAs seize
al ShsgE4e~S b. tAs. cor ersrs The sans.