Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1917-01-11
PLAINTIFF AGAIN ON
THE WITNESS STAND
Denies That She Is Untruth-
full, as Claimed by Her
Husband = Stew e n s o n
son Claims Wife Not Fit
Person to Bring UP Chill.
dren.

The hearing of the holly contested
divorce case of Hildegarde Stevenson
versus Joseph Hutchinson Stevenson,
both of prominent New York mailies
closed this afternoon as FAR as the
taking of testimony was concerned.
The case has occupied the attention
OF Judge G. L. Mccarthy for three days
with one night session. 1t has been
remarkable because of the fact brought
out that the husband does not particu-
larly desire a divorce, but is willing
for one to be given if he can secure
the custody of the children. The wife
of the defendant wants decree and
also the care and custody of the chill
dren, and it is over the two little girls,
custody that the fight has been waged.
Dispositions from California are yet to
arrive and it will likely be some time
before Judge G. p. McC-rthy renders
a decision in the case.
Mrs. Marion S. Parker, a sister of
the defendant, ana Richal W. Stew
enson, Jr., his brother, testified in be-
half of the defendant that he had been
devoted and ideal husband, who
loved his children, was considerable of
his wife and looked after her welfare
and further that he was not ''spong-
err but paid his way wherever he
went
BATTLE FOR THE CHILDREN.
Mrs. Parker in her testimony de-
clared that she did not feel Mrs. Stew
enson was the proper person to have
the custody and care of the two little
girls as she did not think that they
would &c the best of moral train
ing. Her position was that Mrs. Stew
enson did no. regard seriously many
essential things in the bringing up of
children, that she had in the past left
her children alone too long at time
while away Oh amusement trips, that
she was untruthful, and further that
she felt the plaintiff lacked a moral
sense.
Mr.. Stevenson, placed on the stand
again is morning, was asked con-
corning his willingness for reconcil-
iation and said; I am willing and
have been willing. simply for the sake
of the children. to I've with her in the
conditions or anywhere within reason,
that she desires.
on cross examination, he testified
that his love for his wife was gone,
that he now saw things differently
than he did at a time when was
blinded by love. that he had had his
eyes opened to many things, but pre-
ferred not to go into details.
DENIES SHE is UNTRUTHEUl.
In her own behalf in rebuttal. Mrs.
GfAty Il
timony to the fact that she was edu-
Gated in private school in New York
and there won a scholarship to fin
ishing school, which she attended, but
did not graduate. Had she been IN
truthful, she testified she could not
have even entered the finishing school,
The first she had ever heard or knew
that she had been accused of being lin :
truthful was when she heard the tes-
tiinony given on the stand yesterday
by her husband She stated she was n
member Of the Episcopal church,
although admitted that she had not
attended very frequently during their
married life.
Both Mrs. Kobbe and Miss Kobbe
again took the stand and gave testi-
mony to corroborate their daughter
and sister. after which the case rested
awaiting dispositions from California
for the defendant.
WiFE'S LOST AFFECTION.
In voice low but plainly audible
throughout the court room. Joseph
Hutchinson Stevenson yesterday after
noon on the witness stand told the sad
story of his wife's lost affection for
him. 1t was a story of how just as
success crowned his efforts in BUSH
ness career, the flame of love in the
girl he adored burned low, flickered
and went out. The change, 1t seems,
came slowly. In different ways she
showed him her affection was gone,
until at last he bent the knee of manly
pride and asked her for the naked
truth. With all the tenderness he
could put to his language, he told her
he must know what troubled her and
caused her strange conduct toward him.
1t was then, in their little home in Al
bany, that she told him her love for
him had died. She informed him, the
witness declared. that she believed she
had never loved him, that he had come
into her girihood life and sentiment
had ruled her. not love.
Then they separated rooms. A little
later the parents of both were advised
of conditions. Mr.. Stevenson advised
fer the children's sake that they con-
tinue living beneath the same roof, al
though separated. To this his WIFE
would not consent. Later he saw the
wisdom of her decision In that matter.
With the conceit of man. he testified.
he told her at that time he thought IL
they separated they would again live