The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-06-05
low Bowen Procured his Certificate
of Divorce.
The New York Sun Of Friday says:
uSts
Frances Q. Bowen.
non,aa ~ nivnrNa

On the strength Of this entry, Mr.. Plumb
filed out q duplicate copy OF the divorce. Tue
stranger left, after thanking the courteous
clerk. This duplicate copy was aiterTara pre-
sented in evidence in the trial Of C.C. BOWEN
on a charge of bIgaEy. in the Criminal COURT
at Washington. Upon examining the index
book the day before yesterday, 1t was discover,
ed that q decree OF divorce mad been granted
to some Bowen in January, 1865. Tne Chrls-
tian name of the parties had been oungllngly
erased with a penknife, and lhs name Of chris.
C. and Frances C.. had been written over the
erasure.
A search was Immediately made for the
original papers in the case, but they were not
TO be found. The county clerk believes inat
they have been stolen, though he says 1t Just
barely possible that they may have been mis-
laid. Mr.. Plumb went TO Washington yester,
day with The index book containing the altered
csmes. These books will he offered as evil
dence against Bowen. .,,,
The county clerk is entirely blameless II this
matter. The duplicate copy was granted oy
his subordinate In direct violation OF MS IN
structions. The original duplicate, "n Was WAS nas
denbtedly a forgery, spread before ut. PLUMB
to secure the new duplicate.
The New York Times furnishes some IN
. teresting particulars of. the search in that city
py Assistant District Attorney A. B. Williams
ESD, of Washington, especially detailed 10
hunt up the New York records IN the case
The Times says:
The first thing Mr.. Williams discovered was
the absence Of any record OF the alleSeo ae-
cree of divorce In. 1865. pnrportlns 10 nave
been aFanted by Justice Barnard, on tHe
minutes of the Supreme Court, and When Ml'
Richard G. Belnish, the clerk of the court,
Ens consulted he could not remember ever
having seen or heard of such adecree. nj.
Purdy.' assistant district attorney IN New
York. who aided Mr.. Williams, iound tial
there were no original papers on nie at Inc
county clerks Office answering TO those e..
hibited at Washington, and that aitnonSH .,S
docket of divorces at that ONCE conlalneu
what appeared to be an entry OF sucn a ae
cree. the docket looked, on sharp scrutiny, u
If II had been tempered with. The names o.
the entry correspondent to those OF Cnrlsto
pher C. and Frances Bowen, but tne manu-
writing showed iha a,u Inc sI Ta ! had be beer
erased, aud the Others printed in their place.
The Times then goes on to give furthe'
statements of the case, coircldlng win 'n'
testimony for the prosecution, and says;
The only natural conclusion to be formet
under The circumstances was that sone ue
cree in which the fRal names OF the n.s1'I -.
narties were Bowen, had been on ME at tn'
county Clerks office, ana had been stolen iron
it. The baptlsmal names being, afterwar!
changed 30 as to read Christopher G. am
Frances Bowen. The fraud oetrays ta airpo ,os
tinr of some keen and unscrupulous alvote
lawyer, aided, 1t is believed, by some que MAJ 1as
ing access to the divorce records. Mr.. WI
liams lett for : Washington Wednesoa
evening, accompanied by several Witnesse
living in this city, and provided with full esl
d.nce of the fraudulent character OF IN,
decree presented by Bowen's counsel, whiel
will be introduced in the case to-day by TIL
prosecution.
The Verdict.
WASHINGTON, June 8.
The inry in the Bowen case was out tWent,