The union Democrat., 1871-03-18
The Case Of Christopher c. Rewcn In New


| Haven.
A petition was brought before the October
| term Of the Superior Court, Judge Phelps Ere.
siding, praying for decree Of divorce to be
granted to Christopher C. Bowen from his
wife Frances Bowen. The ground for the de-
cree was three years desertion. The petition
was dated September It'll, 1870, and it was
alleged that service had been made upon
Frances Bowen upon the Goth day of Septem-
Der, 1870. ut Augusta, Ga. James b. Will
liams, who claimed to be an indifferent per-
son, took oath before Samuel Irons, a Notary
Public living In Kings county, New York, on
the 9th day of September, 1870, that he had
served the notice on Frances Bowen in Au-
gusta on the Goth of September. In the petit
tim Bowen Is described us resident of New
Haven, New Haven county, Conn.,, and had
resided there for three years previous. When
the petition was presented to the court the
Judge was not willing to accept the evidence
that the service had been made on Frances
Bowen, as o witness was brought by the law
yer, we believe the same James b. Williams,
who swore in court that the service had been
made. Christopher C. Bowen, or some one
personating him, appeared in court and took
the necessary oath of the petitioner and the
decree was granted on the ODD of November,
1870. The decree was obtained by Charles
Ii. Fowler, of this. city, acting as attorney.
These are the simple facts of the case. And
now upon examination of them we shall read
ily see how heavy the evidence Of fraud is,
not only upon probabilities. but also upon one
statement in the petition which must be I'M
true.
And first of all, the mere fact that Bowen,
who, however his trial many turn out, can
not be relieved CT the suspicion OF hlgamy at
least, is the petitioner, is enough to suggest
the thought of foul play somewhere. But
this is slight and would be worth nothing in
court. Take first the way the service was
given. A man wholly unknown to any one
here, swears that he went to Georgia. served
the notice on Frances Bowen, and then comes
back to New York, goes over to Brooklyn
and makes oath to the fact to an unknown
Notary Public in that city. This was so
slight evidence that the Judge would not re-
ceve il, and so the man waa brought te this
city and sworn in court. If it was not Will
liams (the Judge has the only minutes Of the
witnesses,) it was some one. Now who
brought this unknown man here, and upon
whose authority was his testimony, being an
unknown person, received by the court
Some one most have taken that responsible
ity.
The next point is the appearance of Bowen
or some one personating him in court. Who
knew him? Some one must have introduced
Bowen in court and been willing to swear to
his identity, or the court could not have re-
ceived an unknown mans testimony. And
just here the case hinges. If Bowen himself
appeared in court how could he have sworn
to have lived in this city three years, and al
that time have been 9 Representative in Con.
gress from South Carolina. without some one
at least knowing that the two things were irl
possible. If then it was Bowen himself who
appeared, there must have been knowledge
on the part of some ore that no such man ha6
lived in New Haven for three years. But i
some one appeared who had lived in New
Haven that time, and that part ofthe evidence
was true, certainly this person could not have
been G. C. Bowen. just here the case lies
1t seems impossible. then, that fraud should
not have been practiced by some one. 1t may
have been done by Bowen himself only, bu
it certainly seems as if other persons mus
have known either one of the two facts that the
man who appeared was not Bowen, although
he might have been a resident of this city, OF
/ If Bowen himself appeared, then that he
swore to falsehood when he took oath that
he bad lived here three years. We leave the
matter just as it is. and cast no intimations
on any one. for we certainly do not know
Just where the blame lies. But that there
must haze been fraud. it seems impossible not
to believe. The public may be assured that
no stone will be left unturned to discover jus,
the guilty parties. 1t must be done for the
/ vihdication Of our courts of justice. than
which there are no more hnnored tribunals
in the land.-Neu Hdren Palladium.