Jasper County Democrat, Volume 5, Number 33, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 November 1902 — FIND FOR THE DEFENDANT. [ARTICLE]

FIND FOR THE DEFENDANT.

Jury In the MeLaughlin-Ruseell Case So Decide After S Minutes Delib-eration.—-Other Court Matters. The big case of the present term of court and a case which attracted a great deal of attention and interest was the McLaughlin-Rus-sell damage case from Carpenter township. McLaughlin, a young farmer of near Remington, was married to Miss Della Russell, a daughter of Scott Russell, one of the prominent farmers of that township, the evidence disclosed, on Nov. 5, 1901, at Kentland, Ind., by Rev. Father Ganzer, pastor of the Catholic church at that place. The parties never lived together and the marriage was kept very secret and only became generally known when the SIO,OOO suit for .damages against the girl’s father for alienation of his wife’s affections was brought by Mr. McrLaughlin a few weeks ago. The case was taken up Wednesday forenoon, and the rest of the day and up to Thursday at 11 o’clock was taken in hearing the evidence and the usual squabbling of the attorneys. The lawyers, of which the plaintiff had Westfall of Remington, Sellers of Monticello, and Wilson and Parkison of Rensselaer, wnile the defendant had Foltz, Spitler & Kurrie of this city, occupied about three or four hours in the argument, the case going to the jury at about 4 o’clock Thursday. On the first ballot the jury is understood to have stood 10 for defendant and 2 for plaintiff. The next ballot was unanimous, and after being out only twenty minutes a verdict was returned as above stated. Those who heard the evidence were expecting a verdict for defendant, as the evidence showed little if any part the defendant had taken to keep his daughter from living with her husband.

The evidence in this case showed that while the parties were not married until Nov. 5, 1901, both had told the girl’s mother and father —after the latter marriage became known to them—that they had been married by a justice of the peace on August 4 of the same year, and the second marriage was to please the groom, who was a Catholic. There was a reason for this, as was disclosed later, when the girl confessed to her father she had been doing things she ought not to have done and was in a delicate condition. She asked parental forgiveness, which was granted and then told her father, so he testified, that she would never live with her husband. To this, he testified, thnt he had told her to consider the matter carefully before making any decision, and that if she went to live with him he (Russell) would do the same by her as his other children; if she decided otherwise, she might have a dome with him the same as she had always had. This was about the extent of his advice to her so far as shown by the evidence. Some months later Mrs. was confined and from outside sources it is understood that the attending physician was her brother-in-law of this city, and that the child, did not live. Tbeae facts were also kept quiet and waß not generally known until the trial. Mr. Russell nearly broke down several times in reciting the troubles, and it was a very trying position to place a father. Mr. and Mrs. McLaughlin, plaintiff’s parents, testified that they went out to Russell’s and talked the matter over a few days after the marriage, and Russell wanted the young folks to go to housekeeping in town, rent a house, etc. Mr. McLaughlin wanted them to come live with him or live with Russell until spring and then start out for themselves. This evidence and that of both Mr. and Mrs. Russell coincided. No agreement was reached. Last summer the husband sent about SSO to his wife iu a registered letter. She opened the lettor, saw who it was from, immediately gave it to her father and told him she did not want it, and he put it in another envelope and returned it. A letter to her husband alleged to be in the handwriting of the

wife, was introduced. The letter was mailed at Goodland about July 23, 1902, and was received by the husband the following day. The letter was not of much importance except to show the feeling the wife then had for her husband. It began with “My dear John,” and ended “as ever, your loving Della.” Also another letter was introduced wherein she claimed that her parents opposed him on account of his religion. There were quite a good many witnesses in attendance and the costs in the case will be considerable. Mrs. Russel, the mother of Mrs. Della McLaughlin is very deaf, and her examination was conducted by means of an ear trumpet. The wife of plaintiff was called on the stand by the defense, but on objection of plaintiff’s counsel was not allowed to testify, for the reason that a wife cannot testify against her husband in a matter of this kind. Thus ended probably one of the most sensational cases ever tried in Jasper county. The young man in the case is a man of excellent character, against whom not one word can be said disparagingly, while the young lady comes from the best of parentage and has moved'in the very best society in Jasper county. The true reason for the marriage and then refusal to live with him will probably never be disclosed. It is a very unfortunate affair and will no doubt wreck two promising lives.

The first case tried by jury was the state case vs. H. Clifford Wood, the feather reneovater man, charged with stealing the Rensselaer night watch’s dark lantern. Wood had a preliminary hearing, it will be remembered, before Squire Burnham several weeks ago and was bound over to court in $l5O bonds which he was unable to furnish, and he has since been a guest at the county jail at the tax-payers expense. An attorney was furnished to defend him (also at county expense) and the evidence that he stole the dollar-and-a-half lantern was so flimsy that the jury was not long in returning a verdict of acquittal. The case of Francis W. Powers vs. Warren J. White, action on lease, occupied the attention of the jury Tuesday. The jury found for defendant. Landy McGee was granted a divorce from his wife, Anna E. McGee, on payment of costs. The case of Julia A. Richardson vs. William A. Richardson, action for divorce, was dismissed at plaintiff's cost. State of Indiana on relation of Levi Hancock vs. William Kight et al; change of venue granted from court, and case set for 4th D. M. Osborn & Co., vs. George Griffin; judgment for plaintiff in sum of $381.04 and costs. Jacob Conrad vs American Express Co.; change of venue asked from county. No action on affidavit at this writing. John Gaffey vs. Richard Butler; settled, costs paid and case dismissed. John Groom vs. John Kohler; judgment for plaintiff in sum of $99.87 and costs. Emily B. Hewitt vs. Levi Hewitt, aotion for divorce; dismissed and costs paid. • The M. Henock Co., vs, John G. Moritz, action on account; judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $87.59 and costs. Brazilla F. Ferguson vs. George Spaulding, action on account and contract; dismissed and costs paid. John W. Walker was appointed official court reporter for next year. Jesse E. Wilson, E. P. Honan and W. H. Parkison were appointed committee for examination of applicants for admission to the bar. Bilas H. Moore vs. Silas H. Moore, as the administrator of F. J.' Gant, deceased, action on claim; judgement for plaintiff in sum of $225.57. State of Ind'ana vs. John Liggett. Tbiß is one of the old grand jury iudiotments returned in September, wherein Liggett was

charged with running a gambling device, we understand, during the late K. of P. carnival, back of Rosenbaum’s saloon. He was not arrested until Tuesday, although he has been here several times since the indictment was returned and the sheriff must have been cognizant of the fact. The court fixed bond at SSO for his appearance on the first day of next term, and accepted Abraham Halleck as surety, A new jury was empaneled after the McLaughlin-Russel case was ended and the Colcewll-Price damage case from Barkley tp. It is still in progress as we go to press.