The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-04-16

guage used. He said that he believed
that both he and his associate. Nj
Williams, were gentlemen, and it was
their intention to conduct their SIDE
of the trial on that line. He would
guarantee that no two of his witnesses
should be present in the room at the
could not clear the room without tie
consent of all parties concerned.
Attorney GjertsOn, for Mr.. Goodnow.
requested that in the excluding Of the
witnesses an exception be made Of
Miss Abbie Gordon. He said that Willie
she was not a direct defendant in the
case, she was a most interested party
to the suit, owing to the fact that in
the complaint, her name was Coupled
with that of the defendant. The 1e-
quest was objected to by Mrs. Good
now's counsel, and was sustained by
Judge Russell.
THE CASE OPENED.
Attorney Schriber opened the case
for the plaintiff with the reading of
the complaint and the answer by Mr.
GOodnow. The complaint stated that
Mrs. Flora Z. Powers and John F.
Goodnow were married in Milwaukee
in 1885, that some time after the mar
riage Mrs. GoOdnOw had discovered evil
dence of infidelity on the part of her
husband in connection with a woman
known as Abbie Gordon. She had
learned that he was residing with this
woman and had been introduced by her
as her husband, Mr. Gordon. Mrs
Goodnow had approached her husband
in regard to the facts in the case and
he had acknowledged their truth, but
had asked forgiveness. This she re-
fused to grant. The complaint further
stated that the plaintiff believed Mr.
GoOdnow to be worth SIS 000 He ha |
large business interests in Minneapolis
and his annual income was in excess
of $4,000, while she was without means
and, in fact, almost dest1rute. For this
reason alimOny was asked, the amount
of which is left to the discretion of the
court.
The answer of the defendant was
then read in which he denied all the
allegations of the plaintiff and alleged
counter charges against the plaintiff
The answer charges that Mrs. Good
now had committed acts of a like
nature to those she charged against
her husband. in Boston, Chicago and
St. Paul, that she was not a chaste
woman at the time that he had mar
ried her and had not been since that
time, and further that he was far from
being a rich man and had absolutely
no stated income. He also denied that
he owned any part or had any con-
nection with the Minneapolis base ball
club.
Attorney Schriber denied the allega-
tons made in the answer and stated to
the jury that he would show them that
they were made with malicious and
wicked intent and for the purpose of
throwing dust in the eyes Of the jury
men. He said that in the defendant
he realized that he had to deal with a
man who was acknowledged to be one
of the most brilliant and most able
men in business and political circles
in the state of Minnesota, so far as
trickery and shrewdness was concern
ed. This he wished the jury to take
into consideration.
MRS. GOODNOW TESTIFIES.
He then called his first witness, Mrs.
Flora E. Goodnow, the plaintiff in the
suit Mrs Goodnow was viSibly much
affected as she took the stand, and
during the questioning which followed.
She related the circumstances that led
UP to her marriage with Mr.. GoodnoW,
how she had met him while engaged
in work in the state capitol building
in st. Paul, how they had become en-
gagged and when she had gone to Chi
cago to accept q position with the
worlds fair commission, how he had