The Trial.
On February 1st, 1865, the case reached Judge McCunn in the New York Superior Court. Peter wanted a divorce, and as the plaintiff in the case, the burden of proof was entirely on him. That is, he had to provide evidence that his wife was unfaithful. At first glance, the case seemed open and shut: Peter had a signed confession from his wife admitting that she committed adultery with his brother. However, Peter’s case was not as ironclad as he thought.
Meet the Jury.
Edward T. Draper.....Dry Goods.....218 3d-av.
John J. Sigler........._____............311 West 25th-st.
Wilkes Gay............Clerk...........21 Perry-st.
Edward T. Draper.....Dry Goods.....218 3d-av.
Locations.
The Proceedings Begin.
From the beginning, the Mary’s attorneys vigorously attacked the claim that Mary committed adultery. First, they attempted to have the signed confession excluded from evidence with the argument that as a woman, Mary could not be held accountable for her own actions. When that failed, they tried a different strategy, a strategy bolder and more scandalous than the divorce case: a countersuit.
​
Mary’s attorneys now argued that not only did Peter commit adultery, but also that he did it with an abortionist named Electa Potter. Both Mrs. Potter and her husband testified; Mr. Potter stated that while his wife was having an affair, it was not with Mr. Strong. However, at this time, Peter’s attorneys motioned to postpone the trial, stating that, “the issues had not yet been framed” (New York Herald, April 7th, 1865). Everything that had been heard and written about so far was merely preliminary discussion! Finally, on November 23rd, the trial began in earnest.
​
The trial sucked in the entire Strong family’s social circle: nurses, footmen, coachmen, friends, relatives, and even priests testified. John Austin Stevens, Mary’s father and a highly respected banker in New York City, testified on his daughter’s behalf. He spoke of her virtue, as did many other of the defense witnesses. This was because trial was now framed around gender, specifically Peter’s role as a family provider, and Mary’s individual agency as a woman. Such questions weighed heavily on the minds of the jury as they began their deliberations.
