Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-03-03
A $4,000 DAMAGE SUIT
Case Of William F, Prettyman Us, Ed
win B. Williamson in Court.
FOR ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS
The Story of an Unhappy Mar
ried Life
TOLD BY THE PROSECUTING WITNESS

The case OF Benjamin r. BartrAm
VS.. John S. Rossell, garnishee, and
Daniel W. Taylor, upon claim owed
by Mr.. Taylor, was given to Jury In
Superior Court Thursday morning. In
20 minutes this jury returned verdict
10 favor of the defendants,
The suit OF William Il. Prettyman VS..
Edwin b. Williamson to recover $50. 900
damages for the alienation of the
affections of Mrs. Frettyman was put
on trial in Superior Court Thursday
morning. james W. Ponder and Walter
II. Hayes appeared for the plaintiff.
and Peter L. Cooper, Jr.. for the de.
fpndant. This is the first case of the
kind ever tried here. Mrs. Ptettymau
and her children occupied seats in the
audience. and plaintiff and defendant
sat within the bar.
In drawing the jury two challenges |
were made, The Jury as drawn ia as
follows: Walter CHM, Samuel Friz2rll |
Sr., Brinton Evans, Cyrus Il. Mousley, |
Obadiah e. Vincent. james Barr, viii |
liam S. Lennon, James +, Moore,
Thomas Kennedy, Jacob 5. Cochran |
William Aron and J. William Barnett.
Mr.. Ponder read two of the declara
lions 10 the case which set forth the
principal points TO be proven, declaring
that Williamson had alienated the
affections Of Mrs. Prsttyman, SO that
the plaintiff lost the benefit OF her So
ciety and the society OF his children.
The pleas OF the defendant, which
were also read by Mr.. Ponder, we're
not guilty, statute Of limitations, ami
special plea showing that the General
Assembly had granted Mrs Frettyman
a divorce from her husband.
Mr.. Ponder in opening to the jury
gave sketch of the married life OF Mr..
and Mrs. prettyman and alleged that
Mr.. Williamson had taken place in
the wifs's affections. From calling
upon the wife unce week be became
visitor every day, ami EnElly sll day.
In the course of his speech Mr.. Ponder
said that MIR. and Mrs. prettyman had
lived together happily, with however
such Misunderstanding, as he was
told, occur among all married couples.
This caused laugh.
Tho first witness was the Rev. Richard
Humphry, ID. D., who wac pastor of
Mariners Bethel NJ. Il. Church, Phila-
uephia. at the time of Mr.. prettyman's
marriage, testified that certificate
handed TO him by Mr.. Ponder had been
issued by him. lie did not, however,
recollect the persona mentioned thereon,
saying he had married 200 couples in
the three years he was at that church.
Mr.. Cooper having objected on techni
cal grounds to the admission Of testi-
mony rs TO the marriage, the court
overruled his objection and an ex.
ception was noted by Mr.. Cooper.
Mr.. Prettyman. the plaintiff, next
took the stand. In reply To Mr.. Hayes
he said he Was married to Mary L..
Wilson January 3lst 1887. Mr.. Hayes
trieri to refresh his memory and hand.
ing him the marriage certificate. which
he read, showing that the marriage oc
Cured 10 1877. The certificate was
admitted in evidence.
DIR. PrettyDIan related that he and hil
wife lived in AngorA, then in Suisse
cnuuty and then in this city. They re
sided at Nj S27 Grunge street from
1888 to 1882 and then moved TO No. 81,
Orange street. Williamson owned No
s27 Orange and cane to collect til,
rent When they moved from No. So
to SIG, Williamson removed from tin
western part of tuwn to No. S27. The
he continued TO call at No. 526, AM
finally 10 May, 1894, Prettymsn left hi
home, because, as he said, ED Vii
Hanson had got her affections. . II
frequently saw Williamson around hi
house. Altar Prettymun left. his cloth
ing Was thrown out the window. Sine
that time they had not lived together
lie went to board on Twenty -secou
street. While there Williamson calle
on him. As they walked 10 tow
together, Williamson asked him il /
did not want to go hack home agar
and he said he did not, Williauso
told him be could have No. s27 Grams
street Rud all that was in it, Plainti
said be was not living in TINT way.
On cross examination Mr.. Coop
showed that Mrs. Prettymen provide
the capital for starting Mr.. PrettymE
in the grocery business in Phiadelphi
He tried 10 show that the relations b
tween husband and wife were stfainl
early in their married life. 1t W
brought out that Mra. Prettyml
worked for Mrs. Williamson. the d
fendant's mother. who was decrepI
when the families lived opposite
each other on Orange street..
Asked if he had eaten Thanksgivii
dinner with Mr.. Williamson and b
mother, he said that he was at W
liamson's that day and they inyit
him to eat dinner, which he did. N
Williamson remarked that Mrs. Prett
man made good pies, but witness sa
in his testimony that she bought t
pies and sold them for less than S
pau tOF lubul.
Mr.. Prettyman admitted that
never said anything TO Mr. Williams
as to his frequent visits. declaring II
it would have been no use. lie did
speak to his wife, but that alwi
caused a racket. Mr.. Cooper ask
him TO name some definite time WI
his wife and Williamson were togetl
by themselves, but he could not do
In reply to question as to why
delayed bringing the suit, the allie
tions going back to 1894, the with
said: =" | Was hurt and pierced to
heart for the benefit of them poor CT
dren who sit here He explained I
he could not bring himself to talk I
lawyer about 1t until after his y
gave notice of proceedings for divor
when he determined to bring suit.
He denied that he asked william
or anybody elss TO watch his wife.
Adjournment was taken until :
o'clock.
At the afternoon session Mr.. Pre-
man said that he never accu
his wife of being unfaithful.
never saw or heard Williamson sa,
do anything wrong. In response
question, ho said that he had been
amined by Drs. Winner and Syringe
TO his sanity.
George Prettyman, the plaintiffs
was put on tine stand. He testi
that he was years old when his mare
moved from Loves and that be wa
yoars of ace AT nraspnt Thu br