The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-06-05
BOWEN CONVICTED.
TIE CLOSE OF TIL TRI4L-THE
FORCED DITORCE.
Conflicting and Knotty Statements
Mrs. King Rowen's Views Of the Prose-
cution-st Ics and InGidents.

Washington letter of Thursday last, to the
Baltimore Sun, says:
The Bowen blgamy case was resumed this
morning, this being the third day OF the trial.
Judge DIN announced sthat he would admit
the record of the divorce granted between q.
C. Bowen and Frances Bowen, In the City OF
New York, in May. 1865, but would allow the
validity of that decree of divorce to be attack
ed on The ground OF fraud or Of want OF Juris-
diclion In the court By which 1t was granted.
The prosecution thereupon proceeded 10 at
tack the New York record by introducing tes-
timony tending TO show that the record was
spurious. The record certified that the New
York suit was brought by S. P. Gushing as at
torney; that the usual order OF publication had
been made in the New York Atlas and the New
York Transcript; that a reference Tor ex-
animation OF witnesses had been made TO MIR.
Bernish, who had filed a report therein, and
that t%hereupon Judge Barnard had rendered
the dedfee of divorce, To contradict thls, me
government produced the proprietor OF the
Atlas, who testified that no such order had
been published in that paper, and the foreman
Of the Transcript, who gave like testimony as
to that journal. Files Of both papers were ex-
hibited, and no such publications appeared.
MIR. Cushing is dead, but his law partner, Mr..
Sickles, testified that Cushing, so far as he
knew, entered all his cases in the office dock
ct, and inat no case of Bowen va. Bowen was 10
be found there. Mr.. Bernish, the alleged
referee, testified that he had no recollection
that such q case ever came before nm MI.
Plum, the clerk who certified the record, les
tiled that he did so without having seen Inc
original papers, and that The original papers
could not be found. An expert from the
treasury department examined the original
New York docket-book, and testified that
the names ''Chas. c." and Frances" there
in were written over erasnres, but tnat
there were other. names In the book, also
written over erasures. In reply, the Ge-
fence brought a witness named Snlin, VINO
testified that he worked with Bowen at
bricklaying In New York in 1883 and so, and
voted with him for Lincoln in 1850; that ne
afterwards was treated kindly by while
in a Southern prison, and, in return, Wnen ne
vent back TO New York. he paid Mr.. Cushing
a $50 fee to go on with Bowen's divorce case.
On cross-eXamination, he descrioed.Mr. CtlSh-
inc as q tall, spare man, aged about slxty-nVe,
when Witnesses, who knew Gushing well, tes-
titled that he was a short, thick.set man' ana
died when he was fity-fre. The defence IN,
troduced. testimony to show thai Bowen mad
not heard from his wife for FIVE years, believed
she was dead, and consequently, under an act
of Congress OF 1858 In relation to oigamy,
was exempt from punishment. even II MS
first wife had afterwards turned out to be llV-
inc. To this the prosecution responded oy
proyinG chat Mrs. H~icks-Bowen had never lett
Augusta since her marriage; had many rela-
lives in Subtle trust there, and that proper IN
quiry would readily have ascertalned ner
Whereabouts. The evidence then closed.
The most noticeable. feature Of the trial was
an address by Mrs. King-Bowen, made before
she left the witness stand, where she had been
called to testify. She spoke in o silvery voice,
easily, and with little perceptlble emoarrass-
ment. She inveighed against the lDJustlce
which was being done to her. She asked,
when all the newspapers in The United otales
were filed with notices oil ner approacning
marriage, why was not something said OF lnls
before; why was it all kept back 10 make mis-
fortune for her? None but a tend cou!d so
have acted. II this woman had friends, was
it not their business to have made known tnelr
claims to my, friends, especially Wnen saeJ
knew that inquiries were oeiag MADE on Tue
subject?
How Bowen Procured his Certificate
of Divorce.
The New York Sun of Friday says:
Some DAYS ago a stranger entered the coun-
ty clerks office, and asked for a copy OF aae-
cree of the Supreme Court dlrorclng the hon.
Christopher c.. Bswenrrom Frances =. Bowen.
Mr.. Plumb, an attache Of the county CLERKS
office for the past ten years, waited upon the
stranger. The stranger exhibited a copy OF
the decree, apparently certified by MIR. Duryea,
one of the oldest clerks in Mr.. LoeWs once.
County Clerk Loew has made it an imperative
rule that no certified copy OF any decree snail
he made ont in his Office without a reference
to the. original on file In his office. the
stranger was in q great hurry. He said ne
wanted the copy as soon as possible TO hle IN
asuit In court. Mr.. Plumb, misled by the ap-
parent signature OF Mr.. Duryea, merely refer,
red to his index book for January, 1865, and
found the following record:
Chris. C. Bowen
Frances g. 8. Bowen.
Decree OF Divorce.
On the strength Of this entry, Mr.. Plumb
fled out a duplicate copy of the divorce. The
stranger left, after thanking the courteous
clerk. This duplicate copy was afterward pre-
sented in evidence in the trial Of G. Bowen
on a charge of bIgaEy. in the Criminal Court
ovor{pinn the index