New-York tribune., 1912-02-28
JURY GETS BREEN CASE.
Court Orders Sealed Verdict, TO
Be Opened To-day.
DEFENDANT ON THE STAND
Saws Ethel Croker Had No Just
Ground on Which to Base
Divorce Suit.

The Jury that for two days listened IN
the Supreme Court 10 the divorce suit OF
Mrs Ethel Croker Breen, daughter OF
Richard Croker. against her husband. John
! Rreen, took the case under dehoerauoh
Yesterday, and after being out about two
hours Justice Goff ordered a sealed YER
dict. to be opened to-day.
Most Of the day was taken up in the eX-
animation and cross-examinauon OF
Breen. the riding master, who won ana
married the daughter Of the former ram
many chief without the knowledge OF
single member of her family. but VINO
never lived with her. Breen now lives ana
follows the horse business in Canada ana
the scenes of his alleged transgressions
took place there, and some of the Wit
nesses had TO be brought from Canada.
The most important of these was Miss
Maude Diehl. the pretty correspondent VINO
was a telephone operator in Toronto ana
has denied the allegations Of Mrs Breen
so far as her name was concerned. Miss
Diehl did not deny drinking with Breen,
and she did not deny that after they had
dinner together at the hotel where he was
living in Toronto she went to his room.
tions. and said there was not the least
ground to name her as correspondent
Breen's story yesterday was much Ike
that Of Miss Diehl. He denied any wrong
doing and added. Il don't see any harm In
kissing a girl" although he said he would
not kiss any girl Breen said that he and
his wife never lived together. for after thelr
clandestine marriage in Hoboken, in April
1910. Mrs Breen returned at once 10 the
home of her brother Howard Croker. Breen
believes that his father-in-law and his two
sons. Howard Croker and Richard Croker
ir.. kept his wife from him, and he is suing
them for 100000 for alleged alienation OF
her affections.
Mrs. Rreen mentioned two other places,
two other occasions and two other women
in her suit. and regarding these Breen
fatty contradicted the testimony given ny
detectives in the employ of his wife. AS to
the incident at the Grand Union Hotel In
Toronto. which was the most definite OF
the allegations made by Mrs. Breen, the
defendant insisted that the evening was a
warm one. the detectives having declared
that Il was cool enough for them to have
their coats on.
Inc importance OI lilS itSLIii'hs '''' 50
the fact that two of the sleuths TESTIFIED
they had entered his room at the hotel and
found Breen with his coat and waistcoat OH.
Breen explained that the night was mugsy
and hot and that, anyway, he never wore
a waistcoat in the summer, and he had
merely taken off his coat He did not object
10 a woman who drank but he abhorred
women who smoked, and Miss Diehl did
not smoke while in his room.
Breen went on to tell how he came to go
down TO the cafe for a flask of whiskey.
He heard a noise and went below, and
found two travelling men in row. "And
then It occurred to me to take flask OF
whiskey back up to the room" But only
he drank from it. He said that the only
drinks Miss Diehl took were rye hghball
and a gin rickey. and the latter was only
sloe gin. a harmless, refreshing. non-in-
toxicating beverage.
In the cross-eXamination counsel for Mrs.
Breen failed to shake Breen, not even
when he produced the application that lie
made for his marriage license. in which he
was described as a clerk and widower.
Ereen said that he did not so describe him
self
Former Judge William NJ. X. Olcott, In
summing up for Breen, said that private
detectives were in bad repute in all courts
because of the temptation to manufacture
evidence.