Arizona republican., 1899-06-30

her meeting with her father in the
 ht.tel at MiIiville.
 Next Mr. Morrison offered some let
 teTs to the witnsss for identification of
 the h3niwr.ting, which she said was
 her fathers There was another bat
 tie between the lawyers, after which
 one of the letters was admitted and read to the jury. It was written by
 the defendant from Denver to his daughter on his return to Ph0eL, \
 from his visit to New Brunswick It
 was a long and rather touching epislle in which the writer made no 3dmis- sion of the New Brunswick marriage but for the first time told of his Ph0e-
 nix marriage and put himself in her l hands. He wrote that while things had occurred which he regretted l among them the separation. he had acted conscientiously. He described the wanderings Of himself and his son ! Joseph, the marriage of the latter ! then of himself. On his marriage he ] had deeded all his property to his son i so that this woman" could not get it. 1 but he had since accumulated more and had made provision for this wo- man" and her four children who had i then been born to them. He expressed
 a purpose to assist the witness and her i brother Eddie. The writer reminded i the witness again that now that she
 was in possession of the facts she could use them as she thought best. l A revelation, he sa:d, would probably send him to pILsOn.
 1 Another letter was presented and i identified. When it was offered in l evidence il was objected to by Judge Baker on the previous grounds, and further, that 1t WAS a privileged com municatiol. These objections were overruled and the letter was read. It was not of an apparently important character, but conveyed to each of his children in New Brunswick and their
 mother S100 with 3 promise of more.
 There was stll another letter. It went in over the same objectioEs It
 had been written by the defendant to
 Mrs. Irvine No. l by the defendant from a hotel in MillvilIe He wanted
 to see his children, but thought 1t best since he and the addressee had sep arated, that they should not meet again. Tn all these letters there was 10 ack1OwledgmeI of marriage to Mrs. Irvine No. l. Neither was there an apparent effort to avoid tLts ac- knOWledgment. A note of regret ran through them all, showing that his children n New Brunswick were loved by him and that their mother had not been forgotten. Then the witness 1 was exposed to cross-eXaminat.on. She l said that when she came here and for | two years after t was generally sup posed she was the defendants niece, ! and had not tried 10 remove that sup position. She was asked to state what | in the way of money and vllUab,es | she had received from her father. | After answering. the defendant crossed l to Judge Baker and whispered some | thing in his ear, after which the fol- i lowing coiIoquy occurred:
 Q.-Did you ever receive any stock in an incorporation?
 A.-Yes, but it wasn't worth any thing.
 The court ordered the latter part of the answer to be stricken out and cautioned the witness to make her re- plies responsive to the questions.
 The government sought 10 get at the New Brunswick marriage by another route District Clerk Foster was put on the stand to testify regarding the papers in a divorce suit filed by the d6fendant against Mrs. Irvine No. L ! MT. Foster said there was no dOcu- melt2ry evidence that such a suit had ever been filed; the papsrs had unac- cOuntably disappeared and could not be found. The last statement was re- sented by Judge Baker on cross-ex- ami1ation You mean said he. that you have not found them. and not that they cannot be found" That was wha5 Mr Foster meant, though he probably thinks that Judge Baker noted a distinction without a differ ence.
 Following the divorce avenue Judge counsel for the defense in this case as well IS in the alleged di- vorce case, was put on. He fell back or the privilege of the attorney and was discharged Mrs. R. H. Greene and L. L. Plank were introduced to testify that they had acted as inter mediar:es on the part of the defend art in trying to arrange with Mrs. IT, vine No. l the matter Of alimony in 1 this supDositious divorce suit.
 Temporarily abandoning the first section of it's work the government took lib the second and called Ms. Irvine No. ?. The direct examination ! s given in full and it was not taken by short hard reporter, ether
 Q.-What is your full name?
 A-Isora Elizabeth Irvine
 Mir M0rri is0n-That is all :
 The last remark was intended to signify That the eX2 imitation was closed. The witness took it to be a observation regarding the : length Of her name. and repeated in ! kind, s'Yes, that is all.'
 Under crOss-eXaminatiOn by friendly counsel she told the story of her mar ' -iage nineteen years ago to Edward ( Irvine, the birth of their nine children and other relevant incidents of a [ happy married life In curious corrob- $