The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-07-14
WANTS HER CHILD.



with the child by the sheriff who had the
papers. l agreed to take her to her peo-
pie and we reached Indiana in blizzard
1t was agreed that she would write me
twice a week as to the condition of the
child
She went to several places and left the
infant with his grandmother. came back
and went to Buffalo. where l received
telegram from Sister Veronica. / found
my wife suffering a great deal. and when
asked her what the trouble was she
said that she had been bilious. She adj
mitted afterwards that she had taken
some arsenic. The child was with her in
the same hotel.
a week later I brought the baby and
his mother to Savannah and placed them
in st. Joseph's Infrmary, under the care
OF Dr. Dunn. She remained there six
weeks and then we went to the De Soto.
On the Fourth of July 1 was in our
room with the baby on my lap, when
lady friend of my wife's came in"
The Trouble at the De Soto.
Mr.. Leonard said that he gave his wife
handkerchief and that when he asked
her where she was going, she answered
that she was going out to spend the day.
1t was then o'clock in the afternoon.
She returned al $50 o'clock. He put the
baby to bed himself and was indignant
when she returned. He was not in his
room when his wife arrived. and had
locked the door, leaving the baby on the
inside A half an hour later he went
upstairs in the hotel and when he saw his
wife kept out of her sight. He was in
furiated. Some As minutes later he saw
his wife again and went in h1 room and
locked the door. He waited, but she did
not knock, and he went TO the hotel Of
flee. He learned that his wife had Sc
cured another room and knocked on the
door. He received no answer and again
went to the clerk. A porter accompanied
him on his second trip, and when he
kicked the door she opened it. She
agreed to accompany him to their room
If he would get her wrapper. This he
did and she returned with him. The wit
ness declared that he was angry, and did
use words of profanity. He thought that
such actions on her part looked queer.
The witness stated that his wife had
struck him in Indiana and in Jackson
vile and that his feelings towards her
changed after he had received a certain
letter from Mrs. Karl, two months after
their marriage. He desired the custody
of the child and has a mother and sister
who can care for him. The witness I'M
derwent a rigid croSS-eXamination con-
Quoted by Judge Twiggs He admitted
that his mother is So years of age and
that his sister is deaf They reside in
another state, too. Leonard said that
1t was true that the restraining order
granted in Florida was allowed on an
eX parte showing. He denied the use
of vulgar and obscene language and said
that he had been with her only eight
weeks during their married life. He de-
MED that he ever charged her with be-
ing unfaithful and admitted that the
baby was vigorous, active and healthy
despite the alleged neglect
The Difference With Lawyer oliver.
The trouble between Mr.. oliver and the
defendant at Helmken's place was brought
out by Judge Twiggs. He asked the wit
ness If he had not openly charged Mr.
Oliver with having put Mrs. Leonard up
to bringing the action. "He is put here
as paragon Of honesty and truth and
want to show that telling the truth is no:
one OF his knightly qualities" said coun-
sci. Mr.. Osborne objected to the question.
The language of counsel for the plaintiff
was ruled out, and the witness admitted
that he had made the charge.
DO you deny that you apologized to Mr..
Oliver for the language used? Do you
deny that you hung around Helmken' s
and forcibly took the infant from this
childs arms? Do you deny that you
matched your force and power against
this feeble girls strength" asked Judge
| Twiggs of the witness.
The witness said he caught hold of his
wifes arm and forced her to accompany
him with the child to his office, but it was
for the purpose of permitting her to see
an officer. He had not held her all of the
way. He didn't think she cared for the
child. although she could if she wanted
to. She lacked affection for the babe, he
said, and in the opinion of the father
neglected it. Leonard said that his income
is purely speculative and he has lost
money recently.
Two afidavits were introduced by Leon
ard 10 show that the mother is not the
proper person to have the custody of the
child. DR.. Dunn thought she had neg
lected the baby when she was under his
eatment at the infirmary. He knew Of
no special act of neglect, but recalled
that she was irritable at times. Mrs. J.
w. Evans, in whose hands the infant
now is, swore that it shows signs of
neglect. It, too, shows signs of having
been badly bitten by mosquitoes.
Letters Ruled Out.
At this point an effort was made to
introduce two letters written by Mrs.
Leonard before her marriage and which
were sent to her husband by Mrs. Karl
two months after their marriage. The
letters were not disputed by the plaintiff,
but upon motion by Judge Twiggs were
not admitted as evidence by the court.
They told of alleged acts in Buffalo, and
while the plaintiff admitted that she
wrote them, she denied that the contents
were true. She had written them for
purpose.
The matter was not gone into because
of the fact that the letters were not ad-
mitted and Mrs. Leonard did not state
her reason for testing the friendship of
Mrs. Karl. Mr. Osborne argued at length
on the Importance of admitting the let
ters and declared that they were mate
rial in the case. He declared that they
would throw flood of light on the case
and practically told what they contained
in his argument for them to go in as evil
dence. Both letters were read by the
court, who however would not consider
them as evidence.
Mr.. Leonard was put back on the stand
and stated that when he received the
letters he conferred with Sister Veronica
and the Bishop of Indiana and had acted
upon their advice in what he did after
wards. Until the hearing of the case no
one but the members Of his faith and
his attorneys had seen the letters. Two
letters from her grandfather were also
ruled out.
A letter written from Buffalo by Mrs
Leonard, was admitted as evidence. II
was in answer to letter from her hus-
band, in which he had stated that by cor
respondence he had learned that she did
not owe the sum OF money which she