Evening star., 1939-04-18
Judge |ntervenes
In Clash Near Close
OF Stinson Case
PIointiff and Attorney
For Husband Engage
In Wordy Bottle

Testimony in the Stinson annul-
ment trial before Justice Oscar R
Luhring in District Court closed to-
day In maze of contradictory evil
dence typical of the five weeks
which the case has occupied before
fascinated crowds
Arguments of counsel were to fol-
low.
The last witness was the plaintiff
Mrs. Lola Crounse Stinson. who
was called to stand in an effort to
impeach defense witnesses, and un-
der cross-examination she and Car
roll L. Beedy, attorney for the hus-
band, Joseph Whitla Stinson,
clashed so sharply that Justice Luh-
ring had to intervene.
At one point Mr.. Beedy thun-
dered at the witness to answer his
questions. So angrily did the law
yer address Mrs. Stinson that her
attorneys and even Mr.. Stinson
jumped to their feet. The defense
attorney said if Mrs. Stinson would
"act like a lady" and not snap him
up like that" he'd be decent to her
Justice Luhring quieted the par
ticipants in this cross-fire of rep
artee.
Denies Taking Sedatives.
Mrs. Stinson, who charges that
she was drugged into marriage as
a result of a conspiracy of Mr.. Stin-
son and her longtime nurse COM
panion, Miss Jessica Shoemaker, was
asked by Mr.. Beedv whether she had
taken any of the sedative medicines
involed in the case lately. She said
she had not.
rs it not true" the attorney de-
manded that you consulted with
somebody about a supply of these
medicines to get you through this
trial?'
"Of course not" Mrs. Stinson re-
piled Indignantly.
She said she haG taken none OF
the sedatives since she got rid OF
Miss Shoemaker following her sepa-
ration from Mr.. Stinson late in
October of 1887, a month after their
marriage.
The plaintiff added that she had
escaped such remedies for nervous
ness and sleeplessness after the
nurse went away.
She did my thinking for me-
Mrs. Stinson said.
No Wedding Present.
Asked whether it was true as Mr..
Stinson testified. that she gave him
wedding present of $1,000 just be-
fort they were marriedsat Bar Har-
Dor, Me-, Mrs. Stinson answered:
mo, I didn't give him any wedding
present any more than he gave me
one"
Justice Luhring remarked, He
gave you orchids?"
yes, he gave me orchids" Mrs.
Stinson replied dssarcastically.
Justice Luhring indicated that he
would take under advisement at the
close of arguments, probably tomor-
row night, the questions involved at
the present trial, reserving for a
later date the issue of whether the
Reno divorce which the first Mrs.
Stinson obtained was valid. The
court will decide after arguments to
be heard later whether to allow Mrs.
Stinson's attorneys to amend their
complaint to include the charge that
Mr.. Stinson could not legally have
married her because his first wlfe's
divorce is not legal in the District
of Columbia.
Justice Luhring made it clear to-
day that if he is convinced that Mrs.
Harriet Mckee Stinson went to Reno
only to obtain divorce and estab-
lished merely the six-week residence
necessary, the divorce could not be
recognized here. There is docut
mentary evidence at the present trial
that the first Mrs. Stinson did get
a quick" Reno divorce, but the
court will not pass on this question
until hearings are held at some later
date.
Two of the three central figures
in the voluminous case went back
on the stand briefly yesterday
Joseph Whitla Stinson, the defend
ant, and Miss Jessica Shoemaker,
for years nurse-companion to the
present Mrs. Stinson.
Mr.. Stinson, attorney and artist,
and Miss Shoemaker are charged
with conspiring to bring about the
marriage for the alleged purpose
of dividing the large estate which
Mrs. Stinson had been left by her
late husband, William Livingston
Crounse. The nurses part in the
asserted plot was to ply the wealthy
widow with sedatives until, she tes-
titled, she could remember nothing
about the wedding. Mr.. Stinson
and Miss Shoemaker denied these
charges emphatically.