The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-07
WEALTH AND STATION
NO BAR TO MANS RIGHTS
English Justice Shows that All
Stand Equal Before Laws
of Country.
SEQUEL OF ELOPEMENT


concoct a more dramatic and human drama
than that which saw its conclusion at the
Leicestershire assizes An heiress falls
in love with her coachman: they elope and
marry; certain of her relatives are wroth,
and she is induced to leave the husband of
her choice He does not hear from her,
he cannot see her. and alleging that she
is detained against her will. he claims
damages from those responsible for the
breaking up of his home. and secures from
them sum of $500 His wife did not APP
pear in court, and nothing was said as to
the couples reunion.
That is the story in outline In its legal
aspect is was a fight for the husbands
rights, a fight and a victory typically mod
ern in it's phases In summing up. Mr.
Justice Wright remarked that duke
might marry dairymaid or a dairyman a
duchess, but the parties had equal rights.
In this case the husband had perfect
right TO say that no one should interfere
between him and his wife.
1t was three days after he was married
that Albert Edward Smith. the coachman
in question. lost his wife. He sued his
wife's brother, Mr.. Robert w. Kaye, and
her brother-in-law Mr.. Charles Bernard
Robinson for enticing away and wrong
fully harboring her.
AN ANGRY SCENE.
Before the story of her disappearance was
told Mr.. Hugo Young, X. c., who APP
peared for Smith, read further extracts
from the love letters of the young heiress.
In one She said: II will rise above every
thing. and shall be thankful when Wednes-
day Cthe day arranged for the wedding)
comes"
In previous letters said counsel, she had
shown distress, thinking that Smith was
not responding TO her feelings. In one she
wrote: LAS 1 have not heard anything
from you / don't know if my letter l
wrote last Monday was forwarded TO you
or not / take it that il was not. L can't
think that you would ignore it, if it is
that you are holding out against me- Don't,
don't do it, give init is only killing us
both.
Il have not forgotten anything that 1
have said nor the last words that L spoke
to you, and whether you choose to cast
me away or not l shall remain true TO
them. l am leaving here on Tuesday, but
before l go let me see you, will you, il
you are back and are able?
Il may never see you again in this world.
You need not speak a word If you don't
wish TO. l should not keep you five min
utes."
After the marriage, which took place be-
fore the registrar at Bolton, husband and
wife went to stay with the plaintiffs sis
ter in that town. Three days later the de-
PENDANTS called at the house in company
with a detective. and an angry scene en-
sued. Mrs. Smith had an interview with
her relatives, and then while her husband
was talking to the detective at the back
of the house Mrs Smith went away with
the two men in cab. Since then the hus-
band had neither seen nor heard from her,
although this happened as far back as last
May.
HOW LOvE-MAKING BEGAN.
coat, Smith went into the box What do
you want out of this action?' he was
asked. II want my wife, SIR he replied,
with emphasis and emotion.
Where Is she?" he dramatically ex-
claimed. "Can she not be produced to speak
for herself?''
1t was while teaching his future wife to
ride horse, he explained. that love-mak-
ing began. He did not consider it a dis
graceful thing to make love to his masters
sister. He considered his flesh and blood
as good as his masters.
With some heat he repudiated the sug-
gestion that he entertained no idea of mar
rying Miss Kaye until he heard that she
was left a legacy OF $500.
Mrs. Kate Emily Knowles, a sister of
the plaintiff, to whose house Mr.. and Mrs.
the visit of the defendants. She said that
she heard Mrs. Smith say, Il shall not go.
1 shall stay with my husband.
Mr.. Kaye gave his version Of his inter-
view. The young bride, he said, was much
distressed and very i'll. He said, Edith,
do you realize what you have done? You
will break the heart Of your father and
mother. You cannot possibly exist in these
surroundings. We have come to take you
home"
She then burst into tears and declared
that she would go away with them She,
however, asked to be allowed to have
conversation with her husband, but when
the witness told her that it would do her
no good she agreed to forego il. They then
left the house with her. He admitted that
he called Smith a scoundrel.
Did she leave entirely of her own free
will?-Yes.
Did you use force?-No.
The Judge: Force has nothing to do with
it, 1t is most misleading. Persuasion is
the thing.
Mrs Smith by train to Leicester. In this
railway carriage, related Mr.. Robinson, the
second defendant, she cried. and threatened
to throw herself out of the window. she
then asked to be allowed to make her will,
and in a memorandum book he wrote what
she dictated.
erty with the exception of some $50 to her
fat her Two copies of the will were made,
and Mrs. Smith signed one in the name of
Kaye and the other in the name or Smith.
In his final address to the jury, Mr.
Hugo Young laid emphasis on the fact that
the defendants had not produced Mrs.
Smith In court TO SuDSldilllSile lIeil dSSei-
ton that she left her husband of her own
free will He submitted that she was as
wax i'm the hands of her relatives and that
the sole reason for the extraordinary con-
duct of the defendants was that they did
not consider her husbands social position
good enough for the family.
Mr. Justice Wright, in summing up.
pointed out that the different stations in
life of the plaintiff and his wife were quite
immaterial to the issue. If the defendants
melted Mrs. Smith to leave her husband
and to stay away from him they We're
liable He saw no evidence TO show that
If the defendants had not appeared on the
scene she would have left her husband
For an hour and half the jury were
absent They found a verdict for the plant
iff. and awarded him $500 damages.