The New York herald., 1863-11-20
TEE c'KaNE-PiLMEasTOs sCaNDI'
Letters frosn mrs. O,Knne,s La WI

"
TO THE r.r4rOa OF TIE LONDON STAR.
SiR-I have To dsy read your loader In respect
case aud as Mr.. wsis, the petitioners soicito
writton TO deny that auy compromise mas beeo ~
this petition TOR divorce. merely take up my
soictor Tor the responde7i. TO sly that which arA
knew perfectly well when ho wroie-nane.y, tn
compromise has beeo sought, even suggested, Ol
part the respondent, who OLy wholly aud
denies every part OF the petition but waits quietly
tue inevitable exposure which the petitioner SO
desirous b. bring On binseH. AS to his being cY
man. as you seem 10 fancy, 1t a great mistake, b.
ouy object u To give an absolute denial 10 any de
G. tnpromlse haying enant;od from the resi- oudg
Les advisers AS for the correspondent, his hono
perfectly safe keeping, and he can aIogd few sensa
leaders written On the mere faith OF petition re
word Of which has boon shown TO have the sun
foundation. am, sir, your obedea, u, servant
No . srAPrs ISN wednesday night.
The London S,afidrd contains the following artk .
addressed h. the editor
-IrHaving ist read tho "seusation" leaders in yo,<
evening Of to-day and the Eosn,Hg star OF yes
tcrdy under the above he,dns am compelled to break
silence by declaring as sol cor OF the respondent thit
believe the wboe Of the statements IN tho petition
10 be untrue, as my client solennly declares them
TO be- AS " the noble correspondent, he lis IN highly
respectable hands who are quite able TO take caro- OF ter
clients honor and should not have thought II necessA
to say word behalf OF the respondent bSof the
which the case has beeD most uDJusthaDy
assed the faith OF the more hng OF petit
which not word has been or Gas beiievel can
pro yod 10 be true Ihsye been always taught that ca
m IN lus.ioe demanded absence Of commeat cas
uat, after the trial. How has 1t been observed
"a thus ns'ae0e, now; ,,. sr, IN ~, reference
whether you can IN any way justify your
ference 10 tho Correspondent. ".he hoary q
dlnt?" The very words seem 10 assume gult on his.
Then you say Ga respectable firm % solicitors vouch
the pending suit In the Divorce Court WILL under no
cumstances, be compromised" Now, first. who ure
respectable firm or solicitors are you aware, sir,
the lrm y otherwise the attorney 20 the petitiosG
the Mr.. Wells who daily advertises relief to the en-
rassed" by means OF the court IN connection with Il
Weston who. believe, is sccnuntant at the samc
dress Mr. VOLS advertises that he VIII obtain 'pror
ton from f5 payable by msia.ments,' aud without
iiGty Also, that "dlvore cases are colnd1nta!iy
4 .ctcd" The present case seems ''c0nlOsntiay" km
20 The world Nr Wells al once rushed into N
10 Intorm the rubc that no COMPROMISE had been m
the cise Now, should be g1d TO know who sot {
RI of a promise aNjot et all Most nGsurcdy
respondent nor her sol oit1r. She cmpnatUay dcn
all the l!lcg atoms Ia the petition, and Mr.. Wells Ia his
ter 0. deniI nigh. and ought % have added that
com promise, suggestion oi compromise, had come
m from tn, respondent, her advisers she will Queti
await the petitioners o, himself, when the
into court. hlvo only 20 state IN coAcuson tha
the petitioner neither clergyman stated. Il
your woris) does he the bes OF the chr
InstryS' but, Il am not misinormec, he IN,
OF the Weston alluded 70 Mf. Wells daily al
vert!5ing pr granmc. am sir. your very obcdent ser
vaLt CHARLES HDRSLE(,
Solicitor 10 tho respondent, No. staples Inn.
lS63