The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-02-01
.tcontinued from Page Elght.l

mean in addressing conversation to
herP a.. Yes. @. the doctor ia not
very talzatiye man liz he Mrs, West !
a No. he has not been with me. O.
Did you say something about his
speaking to her in regard to horses !?
a, Yes, one time, walked from the
office and he did not like it but thought
she should have sent the horses for
me and he scolGed her for not sending
them. @. The doctor wished you TO
nave use Of the horses while there !?
A. Yes. @. You said that he spoke
to his wife very mildly, or what did
You say. "A. / said that he scolded
her very slightly. @, 1t simply am
noyed him because you, a guest of the
mouse, was not properly supplied with
the use of the carriage? A. Yes,
think so. O. You recite this as the
only fault finding that you personally
heard while you were in the house?
"A. Yes. O. There were no bitter
words passed between them in rela-
ton to this matter? A. No, not that
i know of. @. This did not produce
scene of any kind, crying, etc? A.
There was no scene, she was sorry
herself. @. And she considered the
correction just? "A. Yes, she did. @.
You say that you did not see the doc
tor angry with his wife at any time
You were there2 A. | did not hear
MIN say any angry words = y O..
Now you told in your evidence every
thing that YOU saw and heard while
You were in the home of DIR. and Mrs
Rindlaub2 A. Yes. ~
Comment on this is unnecessary, 1t
falls far short of corEoborating plain
tiff's story OF cruelty and in fact is
more in defendants than in plaintiffs
favor.
The next witness-Ella Berg-was
nurse girl at the Rindlaub home
from October, 1904, until june, 1905.
She was asked to state now DIR. Rind-
faub acted towards his wife when
they were alone, to which she an
swers: Il can't hardly give any an
swer that will be anything" She
then testifies: 20. Did he treat her
at5such time affectionatefy or coldly-.
A. Coldly, / think @. When they
We're at the table at their meals to-
gether, did or did not DIR. Rindlauh
have any conversation with mis- wife,
and what was his treatment of her
at that time? A. Yes he had CONVEX
sation with her and it was all right
as&far as / heard" She corroborates
to&H certain extent the plaintiffs tes-
timony regarding the incident of her
going into the guest room with her
BABY or. a certain occasion and remain
IL there two nights and day, al
though the witness does not remem-
Der how long she stayed in there. Her
testimony is of little Importance as
throwing light upon the alleged acts
of cruelty complained of
The record discloses that much of
the testimony Of plaintiffs witnesses
was procured by plaintiffs father.
with whom the witnesses talked prior
to giving their testimony and IL is
but natural that he would put forth.
every effort to procure testimony as
favorable to his daughter as possible.
Like efforts may have been employed
In procuring testimony in defendants
behalf. These are matters which we
have duly considered in weighing the
testimony of the,avarious Witnesses
Courts Conclusion on Cruelty Charge.
Space forbids a more extended re-
view of the evidence bearing upon this
feature OF the case. Suffice 1t to say
that in our judgment plaintiff has
most signally failed i'm proving the
truth of the facts relied on to estab
lish her second cause of action by that
degree of proof exacted in cases of this
character
1t fs significant fact that with but
few exceptions, all the servants.
nurses and other witnesses having
the best opportunities of acquiring
knowledge of the facts are arrayed
against plaintiff upon the issue of ex-
IRENE cruelty. 1t stands out as an
established fact in the, case that to
plaintiffs knowledge defendant lis and
was during all the times referred to
afflicted with an incurable malady and
at frequent intervals, subject to un-
endurable pain necessitating the use
of narcotic drugs to relieve such pain.
This fact, no doubt, furnishes some
explanation for much of the demeanor
OF defendant as narrated by PLAINTIFF
and her witnesses; and yet, in the
light OF his affliction, there has been
apparently no inclination shown by
plaintiff to exhibit the least degree
of leniency or forgiveness.
That there was more or less domestic
troubles is no doubt true, but this is
not an unusual CO. incidence in married
life. The absence of these are the ex-
ceptlon--not the general rule--as COM
mon experience teaches us.
From an examination of plaintiffs
testimony we are impressed with the