The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1911-01-04
JOINS TIL. MQRM0NEA
Continued from Page one.)

10 3 , - d q -
wanted her tos,pay the Italian in al
immoral way and that she refused 10
do It. She stated'ithat aifshe were CIV.
en- the custody Of the child that She
support 1t and would take. care Of II. /
The next witness was Mrs! King, q
sister of the plalntiif, her testimony
was the same as The: othertmembers
of the family 1in.rcgard to Keener's
being 3improvidento cruel and not a
n person ,, to hay, l the custody Of the
Martha Hartley, efbrmer wife or the
defendant. Rtwas them examined. She
was married to the defendant in 1905
and was divorced from. him In 1908.
She stated that the defendant was not
a fit person to have charge of the
baby. That he got possession Of her
child and soon after the child died In
a mysterious way. and that she could
never learn the circumstances sur
rounding its death. 1t was brought
out on cross exanii,iation that the de-
PENDANT sued for the divorce and 1t.
was given. The witness admitted
this and said that she did not, oppose
the divorce for she was glad to get
rid OF the defendant. Here the plain.
tin rested, its case
The first witness for the defense
was Mrs. Walker. She stated that
she had known the defendant about
one month and that during that time
she had known nothing bad about
him. She stated that he seemed 10
provide well for his family and that
seemingly they lived happily togeth.
err.
George Bennix was called. 4 He
knew the defendant about the same
length Of time. He knew nothing of
'he domestic trouble among the
Eeeners. He stated that the defend
ant was a customer at his store and
seemed to be good provlder for his
family. (. 81,
The mother of the defendant went
oD the stand. She stated that she
had visited the hone of her son many
times and thatIshe had always found
r)entv to eat and that the wife and
The child had clothing. She said that
she knew nothing Of the charges rel
:lted In the petition against her son.
She said II tho father were awarded
re custody of lie child that she
you'd take 1t to her home. and pro.
vide for It the same as II 1t were her
,wn.
The father Of the defendant went
N the stand and his evidence was !
much the same as the preceding Wit
,pss. '5-.,,. [.5s
He had been lnsthe home Of his
inn quite often and found everything !
unning smoothly He said that he5i
levcr saw couple THAT seemed rs
ruch devoted to each other. He,
housht that there was some outside
Influence that was having bad eff
ect as to sthe scoujusal bliss of'sthe
defendant ard the plaintiff. qtt;;2i
( Fd.SJenkins told one thing and that
vas that he rented them the one room
n which they lived In the Commercial !.
'otel. He knew nothing Of their
roubIe. a. (, 5iSt1 /. /, (, \. /, i, H1tf
The. defendant went on the, stand
nd told the story how the Boltons
ried to 'influencel'his wife and make
/ unpleasant for5liin; that whens they
we're, living 4 happily, together they'll
would visit her or have, her 60; to
heir home and then there. was sure
o be trouble follow. He said the
Whole: trouble ,wasSbecause he refused
onger.to be Mormon: That he said
vas the secret OIL the entire affair.
lie claimed that, he provided Jas well
IS he could rs and Sthat the charges
lgainst himeweres false. n y j /; K.
Judge Morgan,in;n assing on the case
aid that It was one OF taose cases |
hat the courts never liked TO decide.
n the cases where property rights
ire Involved ortWhefe criminal action
s the Issue. the Scourts can with, "a
great deal more Isatisfaction TO them
,elves than ins d ease that he was
lbout to decide where I a. great deal
more than property rightss@ere con.
cerne Ia taking 81 chill lfromlit Its
and giving 10 Its IA Their oil
taking ri child IRON. the X Their and \
,lacing III In tile; Gust tod y of Little mot
IN 81 king d child from both$the
4lltlfflfg Al