The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-01-27

had been the efforts of the wiIe's rich
relatives to break the marriage. When
the marriage took place, 27 years aGo,
little wealth had been in either family.
But prosperity had exerted its intoxi-
eating influence and had held out al
luringiy new projects, new hopes, new
ambitions. The conditions were en-
tireiy different from what they were
q years ago.
THE lbeuant," he declared, has
not for years been a real wife to the
libellee. She has rather been the 'crea-
ture of others who moulded her pur-
pose to their own" He pointed to the
fact that she retained the ring her
husband gave her, as evidence that
down in her heart she still loved him
and did not want separation.
He gave Mrs. Osborn a severe rak-
ing over the Goals for the statements
she had made the day before, to the
effect that she would not have cared
| if her husband had committed suicide,
and that she had not been grieved by
her child's ill-doing. Such a wife and
mother, he said was not of the deli
cate mould that would suffer greatly
from abuse and treatment no more
pronounced that the other side had
proved. He spoke of the loving ten
derneSs that Osborn had shown his
| youngest children. Such a man, he
thought was not irreclalmably bad.
| Mr.. Parker commented on the evidence
in detail and scored some of the libel
| lant's witnesses.
| Attorney Vaughan said that he had
no epigrammatic sayings to deliver on
the marriage relation. He could not
| deal with the high platitudes" his
opponent had brought up. AS to the
eulogy of Tom Osborn, he thought the
latter ought to prize his attorneys ut
terances as a model funeral sermon.
| When woman VINO mad been married
II years and had had IL children, broke
the bond of marriage, It was evidence
of some unusual trouble. She would
not take such step lightly.
A severe act of cruelty took place
the very day she left She had made
every effort to live with Osborn and
had only taken the present step when
driven to it. The best monument to
the mothers conduct, he said had
come from the mouth of her children.
Nothing derogatory to Mrs. Osborn's
character had been proved, while the
only good thing that had been said Of
Osborn was that he had handled an in
FAINT.
AS to the interference of the family,
he said, it was unreasonable that an
old couple aged CO and 70 should try
to break up a marriage that had en-
dured ~ years. If the home had been
happy one, they would have flooded
it with money. A grandfather always
enjoys sharing his fortune with his
grandchildren, he said. If the Nor
cross family had attempted to break
up the family, why had there not been
some evidence of 1t before the final
rupture? On the contrary, evidence
showed that James Norcross had been
to the Roy farm but once in 1897. No
distinct act of treachery on their part
had been proved. After all, he asked,
what Is wealth compared to q happy
| home?
After dwelling on the evidence in de-
tail, he spoke of the testimony Of sew
eral doctors, who said that If she had
continued to undergo such brutal treat
ment she would have soon be afflicted
with nervous prostration or some or
ganic disease. He asked the court to
| grant decree of divorce in order that
his client might not be forced to that
extremity and be compelled to spend
/ her life in domestic hell