The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1910-05-05
Suit for Alienation Of Mife's
Affection by B. E. Stubbs
Against w. Eikenberry End
ed Yesterday.
UNsAv0RY TESTIMONY
| FEATURED THE TRIAL
Some of the Evidence Given
Before Federal Court Jury Is
Unprintable- Defendant a
Home Breaker.
tPaiiasilum specially

tPaliadinm Specially
Cincinnati, May 5.--A lot of highly
unsavory testimony was adduced In
the circuit court during the last two
days In the $4,000 alienation Of a.
fections suit of benjamin f. Stubbs.
OF Richmond. Ind. VS.. William Eiken-
was charged with having caused the
OF the plaintiff and his vito
and plaintiff introduced . large ar
ray OF witnesses who testified to high
~ improper conduct between the de-
fendant and the Mrs. Stubbs that sh0
was as she Is now divorced. Teati-
mony was given TO show that the do
fendant gave Mrs. Stubbs the goods
for an expensive dress and then envo
her SO extra to pay the dreosnaker
for making II. II was also asserted
by witnesses that they knew of 4
ring. watch fob. 4 fur muff ana
other articles that Eikenberry gave
Mrs. Stuhbs while she was the wife
of the plaintiff. Testimony was also
introduced that the defendant and Mrs.
Eikenberry, came to this city together
for several days: that he called her
his Kid and that they visited sever
al other towns In the state togsGhes.
Saw Him Husesns Nor.
One Witness testified that he saw
defendant with his arms about a1ra.
Stubbs in her own home walen -.
lived near Eaton. O. The plain1ifk
wnrksd Tor Ekkenberry eor snrae tinneI
and one witness sid that Eikeneoery
made 1t point to dispatch stubhu q
business out of the city 20 eet HIN
out Of the way whenever this was DE-
sired by Eikenherry The latter was
a married man at the time all this was
going on, and II is stated that his wife
became suspicious at last. All Of tho
women witnesses remained through.
out the entire hearing. Most Of tho
testimony was Of such nature that it
is unprintable.
When Stubba was under croes-ex>
animation he denied that he had beoa
an habitual drunkard, and that Il was:
for this and other moro potent reas
sons that his wife left him and sought
the shelter OF friends. Te also denieA
that he had choked and beat his WHO
during their last quarrel prick to
their final separation that afterward
led to divorce.
Eiksnhersy on okaNd.
The defense placed ON the stanA
several character witnesses. Eiken.
berry went on the stand n his behalf.
During the cross-examinaticn ~ Naa
asked about birthday cslebrnkton
held at his home. and when he 4 sup
posed to have followed Mrs. 0tubho
ont Of the reception room and tAey
were gone for some time. be could u01
for few minutes ten the date 0f Ms
birth. He sat frst was uncereAfn
whether II was December 3 or Jan-
uary 2. but knew positively thas q
had occurred on Sunday. and ana11y
said that II was December 2, 11oo Il
reference to calendar for thax yeor
showed that December was o. q
Wednesday.
At the conclusion Of tho testimony
Judge Hollisser allowed each sjde half
an hour for argument. ATTORNEY Hot
bins for the plaintiff. opened wifA =
speech lasting 10 minutes, aud ex-
pected to take mp the ren1nia1er q
the time IN answering the arxumonts
Of the defense. but Attorney Bx1c1l1oy
declined to make any and lefk IL nat-
ter with the court This shut on N
further argument and Judge Hollis
ter delivered his charge to the jury n