The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1898-02-25

No, S21 Shipley street. She testifed-thst
she remembered when Mrs. Prettymari
resided on Orange street. Their yards ad-
| Joined She saw Mr.. Williamson visit Mira
| Prettyman's house often. On one occa-
sion he came Into her yard and jumped
over the back fence. He came into her
house to look at the paper. Often saw
him In Mrs. Prettyman's yard walking
! about in tho yard without his coat. Saw
them on the pike under tree about straw
berry time last year.
MIR. Cooper objected to the witness ans
werlng the qusstlonswas there divorce
granted to Mrs. Prettyman on May Gath,
'97p said Mr.. Ponder. Well, said the wit
ness don't exactly recollcct. ~
Mr.. Cooper brought out the fact that IL
was years ago that he saw the couple to-
gether
ItRobert Mccullough testified that he was
q member of the present Legislature and
chairman of the House Divorce Commit
tee.
Here Mr. Cooper objected to Mr.. McCul-
Tough answering tho question. Il
Mr.. Ponder said he wanted to show
that the defendant was present and aided
and helped her to get her divorce
The court here held u consultation and
ruled that the question was admissible,
Mr. Cooper said he would nots an excep-
ton.
Do you remember q divorce case that
came before your committee where Mrs.
PrettymGn applied for a divorce from her
husbandp I
Was not Williamson there at that hear
ing? Mr.. Cooper said the records would
show that t. p Williamson was there
and testified.
Did he not testify in Mrs. Prettyman's
favor?
Mr.. Cooper objected.
Williamson testified before that COM
mittee and in Mrs. Prettyman's favor.
Here the witness was shown letter by
Mr.. Cooper, which he said he thought he
had seen.
Messrs Ponder and Hayes objected. vi
Mr.. Cooper said he had u letter which he
wanted to read from Mr.. Ponder which
he Ponder wrote to the divorce committee
asking them not to pass the divorce as ~
would have bad Influence on the trial
against Williamson for damages
Mr.. Cooper asked witness II that bill
of divorce was Senate or House billP
Mr. Mccullough, do you know that after
her first divorce bill had passed the Senate
1t was lost beforeit reached the House.
Mr. Cooper said, ceIta.nly have artght
to prove that the first bill was lost ar
That second bill had to be prepared VI
1t was passed
Mccullough said there were two hears>
ings of the bill Mr.. Williamson was
present at one Of the hearings. Didn't re-
member whether IL was at the FIRST or SOU
ond hearing.
CORTLAND G. Montgomery testified that
he was was recorder of deeds Of New Cas-
tie county. VIII you turn to page 90 Of
Volume ID and see whether there Is deed
to 4. ?. Williamson. Mr.. Cooper object
ed. Mr. Hayes said he wanted to show
that the defendant was fully able to pay
any reasonable damages.
Mr.. Cooder said, that case of this kind
should be an exception to the rule where
1t is attempted to show what a defendant
was worth? The question was allowed, AZ
which MIR. Cooper noted IN exception.
The books OF the recorder numbering
twelve were brought up aud admitted as
evidence to 80 before the jury.
Mr. Montgomery Was recalled and asked
II he knew what property was on the re.
cords. The property Of E. P. Williamson.
Mr. Hayes said, your honors We close
our side with this witness.
the court, without giving the case to thsN
Jury. that this is II case Of first impress
sions Ia this State and very few times In
this country or England. shall move 1
for non-sult on two grounds.
First, that the divorce granted by the
Legislature In 1897 is n complete bar in tho
suit. Second, that you know that Mr..
IEolbyl lltl HeNoF lieu MS eulu LUZ uhthhSoS
until after his wife had applied for di.
vorce. He not having brought his suit be.
fore his wife had been divorced from him
he now has no grounds for his suit.
Without marriage there can be no action.
Then the husband could sue for damages
of the alienation Of his wife. The court
has 10 power to pass upon the damages
sustained by the husband of u divorced
woman.
As the marriage statutes Is dissolved
then the charge should be dismissed.
There is no reason why the case should be
given to jury. There Is not a scintilla
of evidence to base the suit on. At II
O'Clock Mr.. Cooper was still arguing
for a non-suit, which the Court refused to
grant The case will now be argu ed and
then go before tho jury for their TeEdick 4