The New York herald., 1869-09-05
TIE DALyELL DIVORCE CASE.
Examination i'm the Case Of Larceny of the
Papers from tho County Clerks Ohice.

Examination In the Case Of Larceny oi tne
Papers from the County Clerks Omce.
The examination in the case OF William J. Fisher,
lawyer, who was arrested upon warrant last
week on complaint OF Or. Jones "a colored man,
charged with having stolen the Judgment roll Of the
Supreme Court in the Dazei divorce suit, from the
County Clerks Office, was commenced yesterday
before Justice Walsh. The Assistant District Ator-
ney appeared for prosecution and the defendant
was also represented by counsel.
Frank f. Archibald, the first witness examined,
testified that he was employed as clerk IN Fishers
law office, 800 Broadway, New York; had heard OF
the divorce suit of Dalzell Dazell; Mr. Holt, also
in Fishers employ, conducted all about the suit out
side the office; witness had heard the accused say
that Dalzen had gone to San Francisco, but did not
say for what purpose; witness was In the County
Clerks Office in the latter part or May last IN COM
pany with Holt when Holt got the papers.
At this point the District Attorney exhibited
June /. 1859 and signed osensbly by A. o. Daizeli,
plantlfr requesting the County Clerk to allow the
bearer 10 copy the papers III the suit:
The witness, on beng lnterrogated, admitted that
he had written the Order at Fishers ofice before
going to the County Clerk's that the signature at
tached to the document was his; that he had done
so at the request OF Holt; witness went into the
County Clerks after Holt had received the papers,
and tcund him ostensibly copying the document;
stairs with them; subsequently met Holt In Fishers
ofce when he asked whether anybody followed
ing seen again; understood from Holt that they
were to get some money for their services from
Dalze 6nt dd & not Fecee ,hs yr amy fisher TGnea
the complainant was trying to make trouble about
those Dalzell papers. The witness admitted he had
appeared before the referee in the divorce suit and
personated Augustus Z. Dalzell, having sworn lhat
was his name and also stating the particulars as to
when and where he was married; he had no conver-
sation with any one but Holt as to how he should
testify before the referee; there was another witness
whose name he believed was George Leonard;
had hpf "a N
knowledge
Upon cross. examination witness stated that he
boarded in the house with Jones, OF whom he hired
a room, and had often been asked questions about
this case by that Individual About ten days ago
Fisher told witness that he had discharged Holt for
meddling and for committing forgery.
Daniel NJ. Treadwell clerk in the County Clerks
ONCE testified to the fact OF his having received an
order purporting to have been drawn by the plain
to him, and that shortly after he discovered that
they had been carried away.
this State, testified that Holt, who had previously
served term in the State Prison, had been recon.
ton-to Mr.. Fisher about two years ago, but he
learned since that he had robbed his employer OF
some 81, 400 or $1,000.
pointed referee by the Supreme Court IN the Dalzell
divorce suit; have seen the witness called Archibald
once before to-day; have seen MIR. Fisher frequent
iy: he appeared before me In the case; the order
Of reference aud the papers In the case were hand
ed to me either by the defendant or some per-
son in his employment; am not positive whether
MIR. Fisher appeared before me on the first hearing
personally, but 1t is my strong Impression that ne did;
two witnesses appeared before me on that hearings
one was the witness sworn under the name Archi-
bald this morning; he swore that he was married
to the defendant, Emma Dalzell, and gave the name
Augustus DalZell, with middle letter; another
witness was sworn to prove the adultery; he was
short and appeared to be quite lame; made q re-
port In favor OF plantlff; as remember gave the
report to Mr.. Fisher personally; but it might have
been delivered upon his order to some one else Mr.
Fisher afterwards paid me the fees himself; the
ma L arn
subscribed and sworn to by the witness the name
OF the attorney upon the papers was Lannlng; he
never appeared before me.
Cross-examined-i ain positive that Mr.. Fisher ap-
peared counsel at some stage Of the case cannot
that he personally until after the report
was made; am not sure that anybody but the two
witnesses appeared before me; am positive that
Mr.. Fisher paid the fees.
The case was adjourned for further examination
until Thursday next and the defendant was required
give bail IN the sum OF 81, 500 for further appear
ance