Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-03-03

A petition was brenGht before the OsSober
term Of the superior court. Judge Phelps pre-
granted % GhristspheE &. Bowen fron his VIE,
Frances Bowen The ground for the decree
Vas three years deserton. The petition Vas
s cassd sepsspesr :. ls:e and &c ss sl,sseS aat
upon the ecth day Of September, lS10, ~ Au-
guSts, Ga Jas- h. williams, who claimed b be
an indifferent person, took ossh before Samuel
New York, on the 9Th day OF September, $50,
that be had served the notice on Frances
Bowen IN Augusta ON the 3oth Of September.
In me petition Mr.. Bowen IL described A. resi-
dent Of New Haven. New Haven county Conn.
and had resided there for n rec YEAR preyious
when the petition va presented 20 the court The
The service had been made on Frances Bowen,
lieve the same james b. williams, who swore in
Christopher q. Bowen, or some one personsting
him, appeared in court and took the necessary
oath OF the petitioner, and the decree Was granted
on the I'D OF November, lsso. The decree wss
obtained by Charles n. Fowler, OF this city,
acting as attorney. These are the simple facts
OF the case. And now upon the examination
Of them We shall readily see how heavy
THE EVIDENCE or FRAUD
IL not oniy upon probabilities, but also upon one
statement in the petition which must be untrue.
Take nrst the way the service o. given. a
man wholly unknown TO anyone here sweArs
that he went 20 Georgia. served the notice on
Frances Bowen, and then comes hack % New
York, goes over 10 Brooklyn and makes oath 20
me me l"Sr " Al snAnosn nSta basns an that
would not receive a., and 80 the man Wa brought
60 this city and sworn IN court IL IL was MT
Williams, (the Jadge has the only minutes OF
the Witnesses IL Was some one. Now, who
bIoug ht this unknown man here, aud upon
wboee authority was his testimony, being an
unknown person, received by the court? some
one must have taken that responsibility. The
next point is the appearance OF Mt. Bowen or
some one personatrng him tn court. WhV
knew him? Some one must have introduced
Mr. BOWEN In COURT,
and been vi ling 10 swear 10 his identity or tae
court could not have received an unkn0wu
mans testimony. And just here the cas-
hinges II Mr.. Bowen himself appeared In court
how could he have sworn to have lived I'm the
city three wears. and AZ that very time have
been representative an Congress from South
Carolina, without some one st least knowing
VA. Mr.. Bowen simsele VINE I sppesred. 'a there
nust have been knowledge on the part OF some
one that no such man had lived IN New Hssen
three years. But i come one appeared who
had lived In New Haven that time. and that
part Of his evidence wM tue, certainly this
person
Gould NOT RAvR BEEN C. c. BOWEN.
Just here the case lies. IL seems impossible
then, thst fraud should not have been practic,
by some one. II may have been done by Bow,
himself only, but IL certainly seems ~ IL oth
persons must have known either one of the IL
facte that the man who appeared was DO.
Bowen, although he might have been q res,-
dsnt OF this city, o. II Bowen himself appeared,
then that he swoTe 10 q falsehood when he took
oath tLst he had lived here three years We
leave the matter INST a. IL 10, and cast no int
nations on any one, for we certainly do not
know luft where the blame lies. But that there
must have been fraud, IL seems impossible NOT
TO believe. The public may be assured that DO
stone will be left uDturned 70 discover just the
guilty parties. IL must be done for the vindi-
cation Of our courts Of Justice, than which there
are no more honored tribunals i'm the land
New HareR Palladium, FeJ. p.