The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-04-13
SAT WITH
HIS ARMS AROUND
THE COMELY WIDOW
Continued From Page One)

when J. F. Robbins moved the dismis-
sal of Frank Reed of this city for
cause. T J. Study questioned the
right of Mr.. Robbins to ask the juror
certain questions, and both of them
arose to their feet to argue the matter
The court sustained Mr.. Robbins and
the attorneys provoked laughter
among the lobby crowd.
Schwegman was dismissed from jury
service for cause. He said he had
formed an opinion that could not be
changed. L. B. Nusbaum, Will Loehr
and other Main street business men
were excused from duty by the Judge
upon representation of their business
needs. You need not insult the jul
ror," exclaimed T. J. Study, after Mr..
Robbins, in examining Joe Commons
of Centerville, had insinuated Mr. Com
mons had come to the court house in
order to be picked up as a juror.
was composed of:
Enos Warfel, John H. Jackson,
Theodore Crist, Ed o. Beeson, George
Drischel, Thomas Frazier, Henry KEN
lenbrink, w. o. Seaney, Meredith
Nicholson, Martin Wolfer, James H.
Helms, Michael Kelley.
Before permitting the jury to be
sworn Mr.. Study for the defendant
asked each Juror if the fact the plain
tiff is a woman and sues a man for
breach of promise to marry would
have any influence on his verdict. AID
indicated it would not.
Witnesses Separated.
The court ordered separation Of
witnesses About forty witnesses have
been subjeoned in the case and be-
side these a large number who will
not appear have provided dispositions.
The statement of the cause of &C
ton was made to the jury by John F.
Robbins for the plaintiff. 1t was re-
presented that at the time the alleg-
ed promise to marry was made MN
Smith was a widow and the defendant
a widower. The first promise of mar
riage made by the defendant to the
plaintiff was made in June, 1904. Mrs.
Vaughan had been dead less than a
year and Mr.. Vaughan stated he did
not believe he ought to marry until
three years had expired. In April.
1906. the time of marriage was fixed
for October 7, 1906. 1t was claimed
evidence precise in its character will
be introduced to show the jury the
dnfnnHant did nrOrniSn 10 q
plaintiff We intend to show, said
Mr. Robbins, =that Mr. Vaughan court
ed this woman repeatedly and Gale d
at her home several times daily to
express his endearment for her. He
made statements he loved the woman
and always treated her with utmost
admiration and respect. Witnesses
would see the defendant sitting with
his arms around the plaintiff: would
see him kissing her repeatedly. At
one time members of her family did
not seem to understand matters and
the defendant took offense Letters
were exchanged but later the family
understood the man intended to marry
the woman and treated him with prop
err accord and respect.
We will show to this jury Mr.
Vaughan's own admissions that he in
tended to marry the plaintiff He
said after marriage the daughter, who
teaches school, would not need to
teach. He sent flowers to the daugh-
ters and bought them theatre tickets
and ice cream. He showed all kinds
of kindnesses for the woman and her
children.
Some time in the summer Of 1906 it
became necessary for the family to re-
move from Richmond to Fountain
City. Mrs. Smith relied in food faith
on the promise of marriage. She
thought to marry Mr.. aVughan would
be very advantageous. She wrote let
tiers TO Mr.. Vaughan, but received no
responses. She had her wedding
clothing made and finally came to
Richmond. Mr.. Vaughan told her he
had made up his mind not to marry.
but If it were possible she would be
the woman of his choice. We contend
in a case of this kind. the woman has