The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-06-28

Tell Her That He Loved Her
Breach of Promise Suit to Go the
Jury Some Time During the
Morning.
The attendance of spectators at the trial
Of the breach of promise suit brought by
Mary Hahn against Anton Bettinger was
very small. The sultry atmosphere Of the
court room have caused the slim attend
ance, or perhaps the circus proved a
stronger attraction than the case.
When court adjourned at o'clock last
evening the evidence had all been put in
on both sides, and c. D. O'Brien, for the
defendant, and J. v. I. Dodd for the
plaintiff had devoted half an hour each
In presenting arguments to the jury as to
the merits of the case from opposite
points of view. The court informed the
jury that he would deliver his charge at
10 o'clock this morning
The morning session of the court opened
with the reading of a deposition from
Maud S Mitchell, wife Of Capt. Mitchell.
of Portland. whose deposition was ruled
out by the court. Mrs. Mitchell testified
that the defendant in the suit had called
at her house In Portland several times
to see the plaintiff. PLAINTIFF at that time
was receiving attentions from a man
named Boch. After defendant had been
there Boch ceased to call or write to
plaintiff.
Maragartta Mundt, sister of plaintiff,
testified to conversation with defendant
in June, 1898, about his marriage to the
plaintiff. She met him in front of the
Germania bank building. Defendant had
inquired how Mary was and If she had
married Boch. Witness testified that de-
PENDANT had stated that he promised to
marry Mary, but his children objected,
and he did not dare
Fred Mundt, brother-in-law to plaintiff,
testified that he saw defendant at De-
troit Mimi, last fall. Talked with him
about Mary. Defendant wanted witness
to come to the bank and in a private
room talk about the case. Son Of de-
PENDANT wanted to be present. Witness
told defendant Mary was at the hotel and
wanted to see him. He admitted that he
had promised to marry Mary, but his
children were against it.
On cross examination, Mr.. O'Brien
brought out the fact hat witness was
forced out of the bank by son of defend
ant at the time of the alleged interview.
He denied that he was interested in the
law suit He did not pick out the at
torney fer plaintiff.
This completed the testimony for plant
If and Mr.. OBrien called the defendant
Anton Bettingen, as the first witness for
the defense.
Mr.. Bettingen said he had lived in Min
nesota since 1852 and was ever seventy.
four years of age. Up to the last five
years he had resided in st. Taul. He had
four children, two sons and two daugh-
tiers. His wife died in 1894. He had paid
thea of Mrs ntnp IN
this country and also furnished the
money to bring plaintiff to this country.
Plaintiff staid at his house when she ar
rived. Afterward went to his daughters
house at Grafton. Then she came back
to st. Paul. Knew when she went to
Oregon. Took her to the depot in his
buggy at request of his wife. Did not
see her or get any letters from her and
did not write to her. Saw her in Port
land in May 1897. Visited her as a friend
when he made a trip to the coast. Kissed
Ter when he saw her. 1t was merely q
family salutation. Did not love her and
lid not ask her to marry MIN nor tell her
that he loved her.
Accompanied by his brother he visited
the house where Mary was employed the
following day and while his brother
talked with Mr.. Mitchell he talked with
Mary. He visited the defendant again at
her request. He did not tell her not to
marry Boch She showed him letter
from Boch and he told her It was coed
chance for her. In reply tc this advice
she said Boch was not worth anything
and had two big boys. Defendant had
asked him to marry her, but he had told
her he was not in the market. She then
suggested that she would keep house for
him, but he told her that would not do.
He had never at any time or place asked
her to marry him or promised 70 marry
1.or In 11d
ton as testified to y Mrs. Mondt in May
1885, and his children had never objected
to MS marrying Il plaintiff for the rea-
son that such am idea had never been
thought of. He had received two letters
from the plaintiff, but they had been
opened by his son-in-law, w. G. L.elsti-
kow, and, after being read by his daugh-
ter, Mrs. Margaret c. Cummings, had
been forwarded to him where he was
stopping. There was nothing in the let
tiers about his marrying the writer. The
first time he saw her at Portland he
kissed her, but it was nothing more than
the German fashion of saluting members
of the family with a kiss. At their Sec
ond meeting she kissed him, but there
was no hugging OF holding her on his
lap as the plaintiff had testified to. Tl,a
cross examination by Attorney Dodd
brought out nothing new.
w. C. Leistikow, of Grafton, testified
to having read the two letters from plant
if to the defendant. He had been di-
rected by the defendant to open his mail
and then forward the letters. There was
nothing in the letters which alluded in
any way to a marriage between Mary
and the defendant. The letters, after be-
ing read by Mrs. Cummings, were for
warded to the defendant at Duluth.
Mrs Margaret c. Cummings, daughter
of the defendant, corroborated the testi-
mony of Mr.. Leistikow and further testi-
fed that there had been nothing said by
her or the other children about her father
marrying the plaintiff.
William ]. Bettingen, of Detroit. Mimi,
testified to having kicked Mundt out of
the office at the time he called to see his
father at the bank. There had been no
talk between tn children as to his father
marrying plaintiff. On cross examination
witness said he used to joke his father
about the matter after he had told him
Mary wanted to marry him.
c. A Bettingen, of st. Paul, testified
that he had never discussed marriage
with his father or raised any objections
to his father getting married.
The defense rested and Mrs. Mundt was
recalled by plaintiff to testify that the
money defendant advanced to bring her
and the plaintiff from the old country
was repaid by work which she did for the
Ratfinpep family