The New York herald., 1922-09-30
MRS. STILLMAN is WINNER
OF DECISION BY REFEREE

the plaintiff and the adult defendant.
while the plaintiffs own miscon-
duct precludes the granting of any
relief to him I'm this action, and while
the adult defendant asks for no af-
firmative relief but sets up the mis-
conduct of the plaintiff as defense
only, the plaintiff asks for an adjudi-
cation that the adult defendant Is
guilty of the charges against her and
for a finding to that effect herein.
1.-THE testimony adduced by the plain
tiff in support of these charges, un-
contradicted and unexplained, is suffi-
cient to justify him in believing her
guilty OF the charges made against
her. A careful examination. however.
of all of the testimony. has shaken my
faith and belief in the testimony of
the witnesses called in the PLAINTIFFS
behalf.
1T is claimed that this evidence tends
to establish relations between the
adult defendant and one Frederick
Beauvais, n halfbreed Indian guide.
commencing at Lake Wyagamack in
December OF 1916. and continuing
down until the early part of the year
1920.
Witness Is Not Credited.
"The testimony Of the witness Adams
to the effect that in November of
1917 he had creased a roller shade
curtain and at night had peepei
through the crease and saw the adult
defendant and the correspondent In
compromising positions Is unlikely.
unsatisfactory. and when II appears.
from the testimony OF the adult
defendants witnesses that there never
was a roller shade curtain In the house
and that the small room in which 1t Is
claimed the correspondent slept was not
at that time used as a bedroom but as
storeroom for duff'e. the effect of
this testimony IL absolutely destroyed.
THE testimony IA to the occupancy
of the Blackburn house In the sum-
mer OF 1918 and as TO the defendant
and the correspondent being together In
June or July OF 1919 and in September
of that year deserves careful scrutiny.
"The witness Grenon testified that on
fifteen different mornings he peered
through the keyhole Of the dooS of
Beauvais's room and saw Beauvais
and the adult defendant together.
why Testimony il Rejected.
"It is conceded by all the parties that
at the time mentioned the defendant
was at the White cottage mentioned
by Grenon three nights only, and this.
coupled with the testimony of Grenon
and Page to the effect that they also
gazed through the window of the room
while they were standing on scaffold.
when the greater weight of the evil
dence shows that at that time no scaf-
fold existed. and the fact that an OBJ
servation made through the keyhole
would disclose only the foot of the bed.
together with the participation of
Grenon and Ferdinand Page with la
Fontaine in room on the second floor
of the Hotel Windsor at La Touue in
a conference I'm which arrangements
were being made for the payment OF
money to Page and Grenon for testify
ing, destroys all confidence in their
! testimony and in the testimony of the
witness Page as to the adult defendant
and the correspondent occupying a
| room together in September OF the
year 1919.
''It appears tina. on most OF these
occasions the children. and at timee
visitors and friends. We're occupying
the same premises as the adult de-
fendant and the correspondent; that
the partitions between the rooms were
simply board partitions. without plas-
teri..g and that at least part of the
time rooms adjacent to that of the
adult defendant were occupied by her
daughter and her son. all Of which
tends 10 cast doubt upon the reli-
ability of this testimony.
More Inconsistencies shown.
",rhe testimony in relation to the
moccasins and with relation to
finding the Beauvais letters on
the bureau and the desk of the adult
defendant lying around loose where
any OF the servants could read them.
the variance between the testimony of
the two witnesses who claimed 10
have seen the so-called Beauvais
letters, and the fiat contradiction OF
all by the witness Oliver failure Of
the plaintiff to show how such letters
were obtained. except the four letters
which he claims to have purchased
for $4,000 from the correspondent
Bcauvais In Canada. arc all unsatis-
factory.
Upon the whole case do not find
either sufficient or substantial proof
Upon which 10 base any finding OF
adultery on the part Of the defendant.
and tho plaintiff has failed 10 substan-
tiate his charge by the greater weight
or evidence.
TO SUMMARIZE: find for tho de-
PENDANTS as against the plaintiff. cs-
tsblishlng that the charges against
the adult defendant are not substan-
tiated that the infant defendant is
legitimate. and that the defense set
ting forth the misconduct on the part
Of the plaintiff is not only substan-
tiated. but y conceded. and the
plaintiffs complaint should be dis
missed -