New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-21

THE FRIUDULENT DIv0RcE BUSINESS.
HOUSE. TIE DIVORCE LAWYER, IN NEW-IAyEN
Ills EXAMINATION AND COMMIrMENI-DE-
TAIIs OF TIE DIVORCE TRAFFIC.

Prom The NeNlIsven Journal tth. ~
On Saturday last the preliminary eXamln-
alton Of Orson s. House. alias ~ House, Of York,
charged with subornnE two witnesses 10 commit J. :,
Inccn Randolph AFT. Isadorc r. Randolph took place
ri the superior Courtroom OF ihis CITY before judge
Robinson the City Court, and We attended ny large
crowd OF spectators and many members OF the bar no
accused sat during tie hearing, near ls Leaning ai!oI
ney Mr. T. T.. DOulittlc who was assisted ny lI cllelt
y lie side the accused, for the most part O the tne
sat MR. House with an Xtremrly anxious LOOK nloh ht
face, which possesses no few attractions, SCI on AZ
was with the hair Of blonde aIrayed niue III the
style Of tc GIl 81 me IoLuI. hIson ~ 1o IN no
room also Lucius T. Randolph the chiel ~ Tor IN me
divorce business. He was good type Of dew lnre
his feet the rail- ard INDUCED III cOarsc Wlhlsn';
In one the Jury seats fat also the innocent Nclh OF
this miserable bogus divorce business, MISS lSahcla
simpson Of Manchester' y d. thc Young Su9 W.on
Randolph married on last Christmas Day, amer EtIug
his decree of divorce She is plain, modest lady-ilke
woman. She appeared plainly dressed ahd heard lhe
.tmOnV with tLHIsed ch"cis and suppressed thotIon
IN giving her own YIN n'st1 rn ST'rt AZ
tie trial, City Attorney Mr.. Pardoc, and W. L. Fo'-
Judgr Minor before whom the fraudulent divorce trial
was conducted testified follows concerning the FACTS
on THURSDAY Dee. % Mr.. Charles III. Fowler "a lawyer
81 New-ayc appeared before the Court with two per-
doluh against Randolph the oath was administered To
two persons one came forward large man tpoihtii
that he was Lnccn g. Randolph his statement was M.
That he was married to his VITO IN 1897 th sue g MN
more than three years previous 10 the tme III Wh'h nc
wac tes'yI hnd he bose In ber habits: that some
man had induced her TO leave him. and that he hd not
seen her since. The other witness then ttslIel ana
then recalled tho man purpurtng 10 DE- hauCoiphi ;
asked him II he keeping house when MS vic Ic
and he said was; he said he dd not live IN the ciiy
but I'm Fair Haven asked the question, is thls Inc pc
tltioner ~ aud he bowed his head said yes; NOod
the other witness stated that he knew the petitioner ana
respondent; that hr lived in Fair Haven ana knew hcm
when they keeping house, and that he had taken
cOpy the petition and left copy Win Mrs kuuOlh
I'm house OF designation ifame In the city ot brook
lvu: think he said house Of designations he knew the
character OF the hOuse, he said, and he knew Ms Kan
dOlpl ordered divorce the ground OF dtseftloh.
Charles II. Fowler, the NeW-Haycn lawyer, VINO CON
Quoted the case testified that he had never had any
communication with House the subject Of the divorce
suit lie took 10" for SO The most Interesting part
Of the evidence Hdduccd was that OF Luclus H. Kan
doIph whose testimony reveals some interesting uetds
~ Tho operatiOIs Of New York divorce lawyer.
The following extracts taken from Ms statement
some Tree during the month ~ August last. $780, was
iurol al to Mr. House by Dr. Bristol of Mant hester
Iasfc, him ii lac could obtain me divorce, hhlhB 70
D. a. Inc crclu,t connected Win the ease ht rli
Tt ne could asked him his charges; H. said 500 Dr.
Hristol reasoned the thing with Linn, aud sAd W|5
'iIi.,-. man and could not afford 10 pay ihi much
1',C., vE,IruI.u Doe ugltcd 90 obtain lAr ana "''I,
~ g.. 'Y. asked tHe lruL.A 81 im. 10 M'.'.
,t.. 3D. ..i. about three uiuLtiHt iu'd hlm '4h !
had 10 moAeI bat would "a Aln ~ b''A'u