New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-04-27
Federal Judge Refuses to
Let Case Against Bret
tung Go to Jury.
RULES BRIDEGROOM
WAS NOT INJURED
Wife of Mine Owner on Stand
Denies She Blackened Daugh-
ter's Eye After Elopement.

suit was dismissed yesterday for the
second time. In deciding for the de-
PENDANTS, Edward y. Breitung and his
wife, Judge Hough, in the Federal
court, impressed upon the jury his be-
lief that the capitalist had done no
| harm to his son-in-law and that he
had been actuated only by love for his
! daughter. The case, when it was first
heard, in February, was declared mis-
trial by Judge Hand after he had
listened to testimony for two days.
Judge Hough's action followed a
hearing in which Mrs. Breitung
only important witness not on the
stand two months ago-related that the
first time she saw Kleist after his mar
riage to her daughter he had come into
the st. Regis intoxicated. This the
plaintiff denied when he was recalled
as a witness.
CORTLAND V. Anable represented the
defendants in the absence Of his part
ner, De Lancey Nicoll. whose daugh-
ter's death kept him from court. lie
had Just moved to dismiss and had
drawn a lengthy reply from Edward c.
Crowley, Kleist's counsel. when Judge
Hough read his statement This came
when all tho spectators in the crowded
courtroom pressed forward, expecting
that the case would be given to the
jury. After the courts decision they
stood gazing forward, apparently taken
back by its suddenness.
Decision a Surprise.
The principals, too, received Judge
Hough's words without an outward ex-
preston of feeling. Kleist rested his
hands on the table before him, and tho
Breitungs-father, mother and daugh-
term their usual places-sat silently
until tho formers personal attorney,
Scott w. Shaull, hurried over TO con-
graduate them.
81 fail to see any act done by Edward
Breitung," said the court, "for which
any motive can be reasonably assigned
or inferred other than affection for his
daughter, nor, indeed, did he do any
thing whatever injurious to the plain
tiff. Because, therefore, ! prefer that
the legal issues in this matter be plain
" presented | have concluded to direct
disposition of this case $50 far as
this court is concerned) in favor of the
defendants"
Judge Hough told the jurors that
this case afforded an opportunity for
suggesting to the courts of this coun-
try a theory Of law which would mini
mize the scandal and discourage the
institution Of such sordid demands as
had been exhibited in this case.
When Mrs. Breitung was called to
the stand in the morning, her husband
asked permission to stand beside her
while she testified. This was granted,
and he followed her to her place, Civ
ing her cough lozenges at intervals
while she told her story. She was
nervous at times, and frequently used
smelling salts.
She said she did not remember see
ing Kleist in Marquette, Mich, where
ne was coachman on an estate adj
joining the Breitungs, but might have
noticed him crossing the lawn with
Juliet's dog in his arms. She was also
unable to recollect whether he had at
tended dance she had given for the
farmers there in September. 1918.
Says Kleist Was Drunk.
Her most important testimony con-
cerned the two occasions on which
Kleist visited her apartment at tie st.
Regis. The first was on December 2,
1913.
when I first saw him, he came in
with Mr.. Rogers "a detective employed
by Breitung). The latter apologized
for being so late, but SAID ne had to
sober my son-in-law up before he
brought him to me. The boy acted very
queerly, as if he were about to fall.
My daughter came in, and told him:
Max | am sorry. We have started life
wrong. l have deceived my father and
mother
"Then the boy said things that made
me mad. But | did not speak unkindly
TO him, but asked him TO be man.
Juliet was so splendid through the
whole affair. But he didn't seem to
care for her, and made some unkind re-
marks about my family"
On cross-examination Mrs. Breitung
was asked on this subject: Did Kleist
say anything about your father being
pedler?'
81 refuse to answer" she replied,
somewhat Indignantly, and followed it
with, 81 don't remember"
Mr.. Schaull, who conducted the eK-
animation, learned from the witness
that kleist had asked Mr.. Breitung for
money and had received a small amount
that day.
81 did not accuse the boy Of misbe-
having with my daughter before their
marriage; | had more respect for
Juliet" and then. after slight pause,
than he did. ! said nothing about his
reputation, nor was there any talk of
an annulment or divorce"
Mrs. Breitung denied showing the
youth away from his wife, as he had
testified she had done when he tried to
grasp her hand. She was then led up to
December 7, the second meeting at the
hotel.
Called Daughter Lure.
"Kleist said my daughter was lure-a
dirty lure and Mr. Breitung was about
to strike him | stepped between them
Mr.. Breitung has been talking 10 you
for three hours and he is tired. Go
away and come back another day
When he telephoned just before Christ
mas he said he would call on US before
he went West, but he never did
81 never gave my daughter a black
eye" continued the witness, in reply 10
a question, nor did l tear her waist
She never raised her hand to me in her
life. When Ada Gafner said that, she
was not telling the truth"
Mrs. BreituEg also denied instruct
ing the maid TO intercept Kleist's let .
tiers after he went TO New Mexico and
keep them from his bride.
She testified that her daughter often .
wanted the marriage annulled. but as
she was only young girl whose mind .
was vacillating. she would say this now
and change il "A moment later
Il was willing 70 have kleist, for my