The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-12-20

Court, and her testimony wa? the most Interesting feature of the tnir0 oay oh the celebrated Mason VII consec m cc.r- ing court had been observed. Judge Williams announced that time hao been asked for the appearance oL tne proponent in the case; wnicn hn Inc etor. attor.
 Attorney Rohinson called the courts attention to a motion he made m con while Mrs. Mason No. 2 was on the stand. He was under the impression the motion was granted yesterday after noon but the records olu no, STD" lt swer of Mrs. Mason referring to har reply to the question: Was there not about $75.000 In the safety deposit box of MT MT. Masson's death?" should he stricken. Her answer had been: That Is what he gave me
 The Attorney cited legaI oeG,sions n en court ordered the answer stricken out Wife No. Testifies-
 Mrs. Mary Lee Mason. the divorced witness of the day for the contestant. then took the stand. She was exam | ined at some length by MT. Robinson She said she was the forr2sr wife ot | James H. Mason, having married him | in 1872. when she was IT years old | She separated from him and was di- yorced from him in the summer of 1896 | She lived in the home until June l. about November following. She obtaip- | ed the divorce. There was only one son, James Henry Mason. who was | born fourteen months after the mar riage. Her husband did not desire any 1 children saying women who had large l families were no better than pigs or rabbits: and he dtd not wish to ne ne | kept awake by children at night. He never manifested affection for his son; when the child cried MT Masson was | irritated.
 Before her marriage. Mrs. Mary Lee | who had reared her her mother being dead. Mir. Mason became enraged when her grandmother visited the yosns onsr tned to her assist asd orderea from the house. She said MT. Mason l would often hit and choke the child.
 At Christmas. 1891. while at dinner at his son, .choked him. beating him with his fist and swearing at ter. rible rate. He ordered both of them Mrs Mason to remain as she was his I wife, but the boy must go as he was no son of his. anyway.
 | Lawyers in . Tilt.
 Mir. Smith strove to draw from Mrs
 Mason some fact which would allow
 him to couple her name with that oi
 To this MT. hopinSon steauIasuy Ou-
 jected. and the court sustained the ob
 MT. Smith discovered that her min.
 ister had visited her during her dis
 in the light of an impropriety Ht
 kept persistently to this attempt, al
 though challenged aEain and again b'
 opposing counsel. Mrs; Mason an
 swered the questions. which were al lowed. without hesitation.
 Then Mir. Robinson charged MT
 Smith with double play, accusing hin
 makng use sas af as kanss swhie
 he was her attorney. to embarraas hel
 Mir. Smith produced the documenti
 at the time i'm @ of the divorce. which he
 as her attorney. had helped to dray
 up. This was an agreement in which
 for the consideration of $s5, ,00Q. sh,
 to agree to take no further actior
 against her husband. MT. smith sait
 that after getting hold of the money
 her part of the agreement by signing
 papers she had promised to sign. Mrs. Mason explained that her re
 fusal gas because s,. MT rossn Mass0n o9 hs
 ing provision. for. the son.
 Mir. Smith handed to the witness
 copy of confidential correspondence
 ceeded to examine her upon it.
 Here Mr. Robinson renewed his ac cusation. saving that Mir. Smith ha, violated a confidence in Introducing tn 1t is an outrageous violation O legal confidence" shouted Mr. Robin son, Tor this man to attempt to intro fuce in this case g. series of confiden tial letters written to him by her whil he was acting as her attorney. I sub init that it would be fragrant infrac