The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1905-05-12
TWO DIVORCES
Figure in the Life of Millard,
Charged With Bigamy.
HE NOW ADMITS THIS

COnCerning Ills Previous itlatr1.
monial Ventures, and Which
Are Produced al PfeIim-
mary by Prosecution.
The preliminary hearing in the cas-
OF Kenyon V. Millard, who was ar
rested April 2l charged with Mgamy
and who has been confined in the
Orangeburg county Jail in default Of
$500 bail, was heard Thursday m5rn-
ing by Magistrate G. p. BrunsoE who
issued the warrant for his arreit.
The prosecution was represented by
Mr.. r. L.. Weeks Of ST. George and
Hon. T. M. Raysor, while Messfa.
Wolfe & Berry and Col. Thomas f..
Brantley appeared for the defendant
1t had been understood that Mnlard
would conduct his own defense, aid
it was learned that the counsel for
the defense had been retained by
friends OF Mllard, who reside in an.
other State.
AS is usual with such cases, it at
tracted undue notoriety and Magis-
trate Brunson's flee was packed to
suffocatlon long b2fore the time ap.
pointed for the hearing. In fact, the
room was SO crowded that there was
not room sufficient for those involved
In the case, an6 the attorneys were
forced to ask that the room be cleared
before they would take up the case.
Miss Kenyon, who recently married
Millard, was the only witness for the
State, and the occasion was very NOR
tifying to her; while Millard, who was
brought into court looking fresh and
in good spirits, showed the effect OF
the strain before an adjournment was
was reached.
In addition to Miss Kenyon'S testi.
mony, the State entered as evidence
three letters written by Nlillard TO
Miss Kenyon since his incarceration,
while the only evidence offered by
the defense were one telegram and
four letters received from Miss Ken.
yon since their separation, and also L
letter from the clerk Of the court OF
Osceola, Iowa, with reference to di
vorce granted Louisa Mlllard in 1880.
This correspondence was SO volumi-
nous that no effort was mace to reau
1T at the time, but Magistrate Brun
son will read it carefully and either
announce his oecisi,n at a later GATE
or Tx another time for hearing the
arguments by attorneys for both
sides. Meanwhile Millard has been
remandcd to Jail pending the mags
trate's decision in the matter.
The contention OF the attorneys for
the prosecution is that the interlOcu-
tory divorce granted Mrs. Ada Millard
December 4 1904, prevents either
party from marrying for one year
thereafter, while the defense holds
this to be mere technicality, mas
much as Millard had not Obtainod a
copy OF the decree and was ignorant
of Its restrictions.
THE ONLY WITNESS.
Miss Sallie e. Kenyon, whose mar
riage to Ml!lard has caused the trou.
BILE, was the only witness examined.
She was questioned by Mr.. Weeks.
She testified as to her marriage to
formed at Orangeburg by the Rev. E.
M. Lightfoot. She met Miliard on
April at her home in ST. George.
They were not engaged at that time.
The engagement was the result OF
several days association. Millard did
not tell her that he had been previous
ly married until after they had be-
come engaged to be married. He
stated to her that lie had living wife
in California, from whom he had Sc
cured divorce years before, after
having lived with her only few
days. After his arrest he told her
more Of his married life. Stated that
he had five children by his California
wife, and gave as his reasons for not
telling her Of this previous to their
marriage that he was afraid witness
would not marry him. He denied
that he had ever been married other
than to the California wife. Witness
has received three letters from de.
fendant since he was committed 10
jail and separated from her. These
were put In evidence.
On cross examination by Mr.. Wolfe
she explained the fact tha6 bis letters
to her were addressed to 'Rebokha,i
while the letters she had written TO
him at the jail were addressed to
Isaac" This was due TO the sug
gestion Of Millard that their marriage
romance was akin to that OF Isaac and
Rebekka, and those names were adopt
ed by them for their correspondence
between themselves.
She had been informed by Millard
before they were married that lie had
been previously married In California,
but he stated that he had secured a
divorce. She stated that before they
were married, Millard had written TO
California to w. II. Haw, CLERK OF
court, Humbolt county, Eureka, Cal,
asking for acertiiied copy OF the de.
cree Of divorce aad SO cents worth OF
stamps had been enclosed in the let.
ter to cover the charges for the copy
OF decree. After the arrest OF the de-
fendant, letter from Eureka had
come TO st. Georges, which she had
opened under direction from defen
dant. 1t contained the copy OF de-
cree Of divorce. She had read it and
forwarded it 10 defendant at Orange
burg. Several letters from witness TO
defendant and a telegram we're idcn-
tilted and put in evidence.
The following letter was also placed
in evidence: