The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-11-28

because l never had it. There never
was one."
The witness concluded her direct tes-
timony by naming the witnesses to the
ceremony, as her sister Catherine and
Miss Cynthia Smith. On cross-examina-
tion she described the ceremony in the
church in detail. She also said that she
had been forced to sell her jewelry and
mortgage her piano to save herself and
her boy from starvation, prior to leaving
her husband.
Peter Martin Mulry, the seventeen
year-old son of the couple, was then
placed upon the stand, and in a quaver-
ing voice identified the defendant as his
father. The scene was pathetic. as the
face, led the lad, an epileptic, from the
witnesses stand to a seat at her side
A mysterious woman in black, who
ha dquietly entered the court room during
the empaneling of the jury, was then
called. She proved to be Miss Cynthia
Smith, of No. 161 Deane street. Brook
lyn, the witness TO the alleged marriage.
The witness eorroborated every detail
of Mrs. Mulry's testimony relative to the
marriage ceremony, and positively iden-
tilted the defendant and the complainant
as the parties she saw married..
DRAMATIC WITNESS.
Mrs. Catherine d Venceus was next
sworn. She is handsome woman, tall,
stately, and with almost perfectly white
hair. She corroborated the testimony
given by ber sister and Miss Smith rela-
tive to the marriage, to which she swore
that she was a witness.
"And that woman is Mrs. Margaret
MulrN' she concluded, dramatically,
pointing to the complainant.
Il was never married to that man,
Mulry" she said, on cross-examina tion,
''but / am the legal widow of James L.
De Vaucens, to whom | was welded on
April 20, 1922
Were you not married to Peter Null
ry, this defendant. by Justice of the
Peace George Newkirk, in Jersey City,
on September 80, 1852" asked Lawyer
Furey.
The Witness. her eyes blazing with
wrath. glared at Furey as if she would
like to throttle him, then controlling her.
self, settled in the witness chair and
answered.
Never
Father Wahl, of st. Boniface R. C.
Church, of First street, produced the
marriage record of the parish, which
OH -a1 o3.I Of oil AT,rir
Margaret Gcrrigan marriage
Now, Father, isn't it fact that no
Catholic priest will marry couple from
any but his own parish without a special
dispensation from the Bishop of the dio-i
cese 2" asked Lawyer Furey.
That is canonic law,'' was the an
swer.
Now, 1t is fact continued Mr..
Furey, that Mulry and Margaret Cor
rigan were at the time not members of
st. Boniface Parish, but of St. Peters.
1t is also a fact that no dispensation was
issued for this marriage. How would
you account for it? Wouldn't you say
that the marriage was not possible?"
NOT WHAT THE DEFENSE EX-
PECIED.
The answer was q surprise and a.
boomerang to the defense.
I wouldn't say that this marriage
didn't take place on account of the non
issuance of dispensation," said Father
Wahl, efor at the time, almost nineteen
years ago, dispensation from Bishop
of a diocese was not necessary to permit
a marriage of people from one parish
in another.3
'sWell, how do you account for the
fact that there is no record of this all
legged ceremonK in the parish record?'
Father Kraus, who performed, was
a sick man at that time and may have
forgotten to record this, as he did an
other wedding" was the answer.
The next witness was a clerk from the
Registers office who produced two books
The first showed record of a lispen-
deus, wherein Peter II. Mulry and
Catharine were the parties in a suit
The book of deeds showed the record of
a conveyance in which the woman whom
Mulry alleges is his wife and not his sis
ter-in-law, was named as Catherine Kel-
ly, otherwise known as Catherine Kel-
gan, Libby Post, Catherine Mulry and
Catherine De Vaucene. The testimony
was, however, excluded by Judge Foos
on the ground that it was irrelevant.
Justice of the Peace George Newkirk
positively identified Mulry ard Mrs.
Cathedine De VaueensNas the man and
woman whom he married on September
30, 1885, as John Hart, Jr., and .Libbie
Post. His testimony was stricken out
as Irrelevant
Lawyer Anthony Engelbreeht swore
that Mulry introduced the complainant
to him as his wife, as did Miss Ella
Hackett of No. $40 Monroe street, Brook
lyn.
Mulry was then called in his own de-
fense, and refused to tell his address,
finally admitting however that it was in
New Jersey.
He swore positively that he had never
been married to the complainant, but
knew her at the time of the alleged mar
riage and for ten or twelve years after.
ION Septembey 80, 1886, was sin
gle man, and on that day l married
Catherine. have lived with Margaret .
he continued. .'but was never married