Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1909-01-27

adultery and cruel and inhuman treat
rlent on the part of the defendant
The defendant has filed a, cross pc
tition in which she asks for divorce
and the custody of the children, and
for alimony, on the ground OF cruel
and inhuman treatment on the part
of the plaintiff.
Nine days have been consumed I'M
the taking of the testimony, most of
which has been directed to charges
of adultery and the defense thereto.
There is before Court great mass OF
testimony on both sides upon this
question, and it is unnecessary to
say that it is conflicting. Much of
the testimony of the plaintiffs wit
nesses in support of the charges of
adultery cannot be believed. 1t is I'M
,believable that any woman would
commit adultery in the full glare OF
an electric light, and unhidden BY
the view of every passer by.lt is alb
ialutely unbelievable that woman
would expose herself in condition
of nakedness to the gaze of man
other than her husband iii the pres
ence of her little daughter of the age
Of 10 years, the child being also max
ed with the window sash and shades
raised so that people within seeing
distance might see all that TRANSFERRED
lin the room. The testimony in re-
| gard to the alleged seeing Of the de-
j PENDANT and her little daughter naked
lin room with a strange man Is base
upon Che testimony of the witnesses
4 Miss Haley and Miss Eckart. In the
opinion Of the Court these two wit
Il nesses testified to what they be
Ilieved they saw, but K think that they
4 were mistaken. 1t is probable that
they saw the defendant and her little
! girl in the room nearly, if not quite
naked, as they claim they did, and II
is probable that they saw some one
in the room that they believed to be
man, but they were no doubt mis-
( taken. as to seeing man there. The
most depraved woman on earth woult
not disrobe and cause her little in
= nccent daughter to do so, in the pres
( ence of strange man; but she
3 hight, while attending to the de
/ lmands of the toilet and of persona
cleanliness, have disrobed and caused
lker little daughter to disrobe, AM
have forgotten to pull down the win
n dow shade. The witnesses of thi
al alleged incident We're unquestionabl,
!. mistaken, though honest in their in
tent to give truthful testimony.
1t is highly improbable that WON
an would throw her arms around TIL
! neck of man and kiss him, WHIT
;-Ihad recently had an operation on hi
pl face, and from which he was thel
g suffering.
There has been much evidenc
= against the defendant in this respec
3 that the Court cannot believe is true
land the Court is OF the opinion tina
el q large portion of the evidence npo
which the plaintiff relies for TIL
proof of his charge Of adultery, car
g not be given any serious consider;
u ton.
hi There is evidence here that on
n OF the witnesses openly boosted t
the plaintiff of his illicit relation
: with the defendant; that he talke
II mon the subject in a Boosting wa
/ to men and women indiscriminatel.
h some of whom have come upon tn
stand and testified to the most dis
gushing details of these alleged col
= yersations. AS to that class of test
& mony the Court is of the opinion tina
nj it is unworthy Of belief and canne
n convict the defendant of the charg
of adultery upon any such testimon!
The plaintiff has, in the opinion c
the Court, attempted to prove e1
tirely too much, and has used unfai
e means and methods for the purpoa
S of accomplishing his ends. At tn
10 same time l do not find that til
plaintiff has Intentionally done wron
IL this respect; he has simply bee
" mistaken.
10 A large amount Of evidence ha
1T been introduced here as to what
known as the raid upon the hon
of the defendant, in which the test
mony of two detectives has been pr
~ duced; but it must be apparent tn;
' nothing was accomplished by thes
y detectives; and all of the testimon
in respect to this raid is consistel
with the entire innocence of the d,
. PENDANT as to these particult
IN charges against her. 1t is remarl
able that if these detectives sa
strange man enter the defendant
house Oh the night in question, Il
H. should have escaped while IL
II house YVES surrounded by SO man
Al persons in the employ of the plail
tiff, and is equally noteworty tn;
these detectives having seen ma
enter the house, should not hay
lg been able to find him, although at a
times thereafter they We're on gual
to prevent his escape.
The Court is of the opinion tn;
the defendant has been guilty of il
discretion, possibly serious indescr
: ton, but there is 10 proof here upo
'e which finding that she has bee
n guilty of adultery could be based.
AL have seen the witnesses who hay
II appeared and testified upon the wi
:. ness stand; have seen and talke
with the little daughter. the part
y who is said to have been in the roo1
g. with her mother when she and he
y mother were naked. in the presenc
cf strange man; and after consider
inu all tha tpStimDny and seeing tn