Was Mrs. Varner Unfaithful Or Is Accusation A Concocted Scheme? Feb. 23, 1921

Greensboro, Feb. 23—Attorneys today are presenting to the jury the issues in the suit instituted by Mrs. H.B. Varner against her husband, H.B. Varner, of Lexington, for reasonable support, the indications being that the jury will get the case about noon Thursday.

The final testimony was produced in the early part of Tuesday’s session of the court. Both Mr. and Mrs. Varner were recalled to the stand by their respective attorneys.

Mrs. Varner testified in rebuttal to evidence which her husband had brought out, but it was largely a reiteration of her former testimony. She restated the dates when Mr. Varner had been away from home during the past few years when Mr. Varner had been away from home during the past few years and also when she had visited her mother in Salt Lake City. Mr. Varner’s evidence was to the effect that these dates as given by his wife were incorrect, that she visited her mother in 1906 (1916?), for instance, instead of 1917 as stated.

Other witnesses were put on the stand for purposes of corroboration, no new testimony being produced by either side.

Much time was taken up in arguments by the attorneys as to what would constitute the issues to be submitted by the jury. Judge Boyd finally announced that the following questions will be delivered by the court to the jury:

“Did the defendant separate himself from the plaintiff and fail to provide her with the necessary subsistence, according to his means and conditions in life, as alleged in the complaint?

“Did the plaintiff commit adultery with R.B. McRary, as alleged in the answer?

“What sum, if any, should be allotted and paid or secured to the plaintiff for her reasonable subsistence from the estate of the defendant?” Mr. Cansler made the point that if the jury should answer the question having to do with an allowance of subsistence in the affirmative, it should be left with the court what amount should be. Judge Boyd ruled, however, that he was going to let the jury settle this point as well as all the others, and Mr. Cansler noted an exception to the ruling of the bench.

R.R. King, of counsel for the plaintiff, was the first attorney to get in action before the jury. He dwelt largely with the second question which the jury will determine, declaring that if this was answered in the negative, it made little difference to his client what answer was given the other two questions. He emphasized the duty which rests upon the jury to acquit Mrs. Varner of every charge of disloyalty to her husband and of improper relations with McRary. Mr. King charged that the “whole thing is a concocted scheme” on the part of the defense.

From the Charlotte News and Evening Chronicle, Feb. 23, 1921