The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-04-27
GOODNOW'S VERSION.
He Differs From His Wife as to Why
They Separated.

Ihey separated.
The Goodnow divorce case will probably
go to the jury by Thursday morning Most
of the direct testimony in the case has been
entered, and when the defense has introduced
It's several remaining witnesses only the re-
buttal and argument to the jury remain. The
defendant occupied the witness stand all of
yesterday and during the cross-examination of
the afternoon assis ed in bringing out some
OF the lnterestin ss~ s in the somewhat Gel
ebraed case. A lalGa number of letters were
introduced in evidence written by Frank Mar
tin and others to the defendant. These with
drafts, notes, ETC., occupied the larger part
of the forenoon.
Mr.. Goodnow, however, was called upon to
give his version of the meeting in the room
al the Pfster hotel in Milwaukee, the nigh
after the marriage. After reaching the room
ne was somewhat surprised to hear his bride
address him once or twice as Frank" and
again as Rob" These lapsus Iinguae aroused
his suspicious, which were further excited by
certain things which had become recognizable
to him through his training for the practice
of medicine, and he resolved not 10 take her
to the home of his children, of whom he was
passionately fond.
In the afternoon an attempt was made by
the defendant to get into evidence some news
paper clippings referring, in uncompli-
mentary manner to Frank Martin, but they
were ruled out. Mr.. Goodnow stated that at
his interview with his wife at the Holmes
hotel, he had not admitted that he had been
untrue to her, nor did he ask her for another
chance. She might have said something about
d
tongs, but it was not in connection with for
giVeneSS.
The chief incident of the afternoon was the
introduction by the prosecution, on CROSSE X-
animation, of three letters, couched in endear-
ing terms which MIR. GoodnOw admitted having
written to his wife on his return to Mime
apolis after the parting at the Pfster hotel
in Milwaukee. The dates of the letters were
July II, 10 and IA, the three succeeding days
after the parting, and were intended by the
prosecution to show to the jury the improba-
bility of Mr.. Goodnows statement that he had
put his wife aside at that time. In the epiStle
Of the 18th the writer spoke confidingly of his
doings in Minneapolis and concerning a ring
or bracelet which it informed the recipient
had been sent her. Affectionate phrases per-
meated the letter, and the writer expires sed the
sentiment that though the token resemble ed
a handcuf lis wearing would be made easy
by love and confidence Besides these love
and confidence" the writer stated that he
had found all else vanity and vexation."
Asked If the marriage had been solemnized
by ring, Mr.. Goodnow said he did not re-
member.
Where did you get that ring on your
f1nger?" asked Attorney Schriber pointedly
to gold band worn by the Witness
None Of your business, " answered the de-
PENDANT, adjusting himself to the chair and
awaiting the next question.
The letter Of the 18th instant contained the
salvation Dear DIANA" and asked an expla-
nation of several affairs of business with which
Mrs. Goodnow had connection in Milwaukee
and how long they would demand her atten-
ton. The writer stated that he only mana ed
to exist and maintain a cheerful humor ION
love and anticipation" concluding the letter
with an inquiry as to whether or not Mrs
GoOdnow would be able Ito come up Sun
day" In the last letter the past was re-
ferred to by the writer as a dream, while
with affectionate language he spoke of a ring
which he proposed presenting to the Plaintiff
and of the pleasure it would afford him to
place Il upon her finger personally, giving this
as reason why the gift was withheld un:il
the coupe should meet.
The defendant admitted under questioning
having paid 81 zoe physicians fees an. med cal
attendance incurred by his wife in Boston,
Mass. Asked where he had proPose ed to hi 8
wife, witness stated that he had made his
offer of marriage in a cab in the reefs Of
Chicago. He admitted caressing his wife be-
fore the marriage but could not remember
how many times he had proposed to her.
At one time durlGg the cross-exah1ina ton
Mr.. GoodnoT YES Io0seG by question Of
plannf's a-tcTnavs % Il lec,5-st ton that he
I T.':socU-iOH Of the divorce srt xFS tn mai
crs W.; o. his p9-'t;ca- saan ca zhor he
ha.geG with defraging lie =Xr5-se of the case
for Mrs Goodnow. Upon being asked to
name some of the individuals engaged in
this course. Mr. Goodnow had admitted his
inabli Y to do so at once, when his attorney
ir-e~ooscd an objection and the matter was
ruled out.