New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-21
nj Of my weccs until thc $40 had been paid him; I

made three poymen,s for which have his receipts
sent tho payments by express got y Ieg DroGe anu ,
he'd mnabe to attend 10 business TO see Mr. House. and
find out when the divorce would be ready asr ny g
go we'll went 10 see Mr. House, ana TOOK Mr. curtis
with me; this I think, In the early part oi tbe
month % Dccemncr 1870 w,hGu oo ead Tor for me
said he II have not" "Woll," says !, - Is vedy
remarkable tho time - up ana nh hs9 in Tho
mean time received several letters previous to MS n
stating that the divorce would be ready nv ooi,
Will excuse M, but Tie language usc1 was, You
ola would cut your ears oHif had my way VIII I
IL Inc Office: went down and got my dinner anu Wehs
back had given m the divorce had been ie9 70 80
don't ny al 10 pieccs-this thing can be hxcd YET
1 went In, aud. said he, - can oDti ,I SSo"t
500 more tnan Won have paid me-" said
!. When you obtain ti SAID be- " Ia tHo r SsIhS
YOU here and your divorce will be ready J. DO
remarked, "s.gn this pcti.ioni" told him WGup P2
enough Of my money already without any p1sIc iii m
p9t II before Judge in Conne6tiont asked him to
rad II over, and no did ne read inc o9"pln,"SS
and he did 90; he remarked, why, didn't
she ever commit adulteryl" said l. That u no
hody's bu.uesa but my own have children am am, !
don't want TO put them in dsgrace" signed tho petl
tion never saw him gain until went for the divorce
uno6 tc Frii,y two weeks afer was there before
went In aud tho divorce not there House SAID the
he here o ft iogi frn went down and got my
dinner returned about o'clock and walked into the
Office whether MIR House was the front or not,
don't remember but at any rate Mrs House asked me,
how hu. j win you give me for your diyOrceF sad,
$500 over and above what agreed to-" she went ID
tho book case and took out and handed 70 TO and
ua IeT tbc sio: took the divorce and went into tho
next where Mr. House and read over ana Cd
served that he had me down as citizen Of Ncw-aycn;
remarked to him that never was in the state OF Con
ucctcut day IA my lie; said he, you are transient
man ana railroad man, and have residence any
where" said that is an very true, sir but certainly
cannot claim Connecticut my residence when nave
never boon in that State" said he cit is nero matter
of FORM" and took his pennifc and erased New Haven,
Conn.," leaving only my name lac made, think, come
remark that At mere matter Of form; went home
that afternoon the train; gave the 500 TO MISTRESS
House and she offered no receipt. but said did not
want il, rs bad got the divorce. . Ill, 10
Ihe following yaper was shown the witness, which no
said he coi Out Of the POs-O1ico; il read as follows:
Law OFFICE oV NJ lior's No % Mason street
DER str to S d. S @n oan "' III Or Id Why should there
h. c, , .ho IA teach one b-r-i am getting your divorce
G no te,r h5rI void me shah have ready
Hno.r pser was ho%n tie witness, which he said
he got at the Post O1isc It read as follows:
law OF.IcE % H. Iousz No 70 Ns'san street
New permitting 7oa s9ry aga in New Jersey q, other
Tnc witness coS@Dd told House at the first inter
view that married the ltOf December, 1882 and
borcrs OF Mexico link that the ir, time heard Of
her being there the lat of last July don't rec0l
ec that told House my rc.idoncc came from Fiol-
ida: had never been In NcvJersoy before the next
time saw House aiter got the decree was week
way the lady married Last was with asked him
fAe lad seen the pics in rnE TRIBUNE he said lac had;
frl, iust "a Innocent "a baby sad he " do Rom
dolph got You into this trouble ana will try and get
you OF ~ said he: 81 yon get arrested IN NowJer
-ey can DO nothing for yOl, rs am not acquainted
tora If on get arrested n Connecticut will furnish
/ Won with q bondsnan and muEey;" I got arrested in
both uartl but have som no bonds or money laugh
teri; never have seen lin ince tn met him IN the
oti OF the police IN Newli&ycn; tDe piecG IN Tue
TlIUiEE the who're Judge Minor sdld There hdu
! boon great fraud PERFORATED on the Court; when
sa. hin, I'm the pocc ohcc shook hands win him and
said ! supposed ne had come to BAL mo ont th1usht
Dee honest. knew h. had been arrested he SAID No:
am prisoner" said "ThAt cant be possible; but II
yuu say DO must ho 20, ryou know HJMsc nave Lhe
Jag "siGto"y le ycr Ghc NcGraren iowvcr,
stating that my divorce had been set aside; that
e C3.oi"t ~, "a ": I g,r I'c " oi cauTso Won Viii
know what 70 PURSUE That was part OF the
letter. lac wanted To ct away ard ont Of the country;
a. IVA trcd charlie something Fowler don't rec0l-
nrch rs now would not have done ~ knew nothing
Of Mr. Fowler until tine piece came ont in IHE TmBUNE
in r. -,rru,c - Mr. Fowler; don't think he men
Hfr fnr' cr testimony involving details and techni-
caes OF great LEGAL Importance. but OF htio public
Cont s that it appeared upon the evidence that on
tho 22d Of las Dscemoer Two persons m cn s1
enc iu which GMricn r. Randolph was petitioner and
fs or claimed which have been here prov ed TO be-
untrue ono witness testified that he was the petitioner
! hal known the petitioner and had known him when
keeping % house in Fair Haven, which testimony bad
the dc oudart ousc haU anything 70 do with that per
Jury aud so had brrouc guilty oi PERJURY or au6ornalion
of perjury. TIE te tmony dsci05cs that Mr Randolph
auutd to MI HO,r I'D procure him divorce, ana paid
nm $40 and lett the matter ia his hands, after hakin
dnph has with the matter il when ne receives the decree
House. That petition appeared In Nrwlaveutfr ap-
reared court and upon thai petition testimony was
! taken that false. II seemed 10 the
| court that there could be no question
n the mind OF any person that the machinery
of this divorce, including the preparing or the petition
me decree the witnesses, and the RETURN taken win me
fact that House received the money and that he had IN
his Office man who said ne had been mp here that the
proceedings made under The direction OF House ana
by his procurement, would not he possible Tor INN to
b. guilty Of perjury for that took place here
/ Inn court but there ~ no other reasonable ny
pothc~is than that he procured this perjury
The Court could no escape from Such
conclusion Tho question of law was whether the ac
cu.eI. not having been the STATE, could be guilty or
suboruaton perjury this state There could be ltie
doubt Of that seemed to the Court that the act OF
sub0rnaton of perjury, when the perjury took pace
within the State uSd,tio could not no said TO be en-
finely committed outside OF the STATE. Tie procuring OF
tc act followed the parties until the PERJURY was com
luittcd Ie Court Therefore, ordered thc defendant 10
Ice bound over upon 500 bonds.
The accused was committed TO jail. Up 20 sunday
evening ne had not procured bonds. but u Is thought
that he will in o few days. The case against Rand0lpn
for his share in the Transaction. VIII probably DC WILL
drawn. and be will he permitted TO 20 home.
------------------