Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-02-05
HER ONLY DECE#T ACTIOH.
An interview With Frank LawIOr, ORcs the
Husband Of Helen Josephine Hanstield.
Marrying Him Proves to Rave Been Her
Sole Respectable Achievement.

and although TO parties conversant
with the early history of the "beau-
! tiful siren, i" it is known to be untrue,
| il might not be of sufficient import
ance to contradict, did it not drag
into the foul mess a gentleman against
whom rumor or newspaper report
never before raised its defamatoTy
voice. The gentleman is Mr.. Frank
IaWIOr, director of the Academy of
Music of this city, and who, as is well.
known, was the husband of the much
talked.Of. woman, until forced by her
misconduct he procured a divorce.
After distorting the facts concern
ing the tragic death OF Joseph Mans
field, father of Helen Josephine, the
Sun proceeds with the statement that
LaWlor's marriage with the latter was
the result of an elopement from the
convent of NOtre Dame at San Jose,
where she had been placed to finish
her education; that the married
couple, after brief tour, returned to
San Francisco and went to board with
the brides mother, who had, subse-
quent to Mansfield 'Sadeath, married
with a Mr.. Warren, and finally that
LaWlor and Warren attempted, but
failed in the attempt, to black-mail an
Englishman named Perley out Of
s., 900 for alleged trifiing with the
affections of Mrs. Mansfield, in which
little game she, also. took a hand.
It is needless to say that Mr., Law
lor enjoys an unblemished reputation
in this city, or that ne would suffer,
where known, by the publication OF
those foul ISLANDERS. But in this case,
as in most Others, falsehOOd has dis
tanced truth, ana it was to do simple
act of Justice to an injured man that a
representative of the Times yesterday
called on Mr.. LaWlOr and obtained
| from him q true statement OF his con-
nectiOn with the unfortunate woman.
| Mr.. LlaWlOr was found in the box Of
fee of the Academy, and when spO-
| ken to regarding the article in the
New York sun, unhesitatiDgly pro-
nOunced il q fabrication from Begin
ming to end.
Reporter-Have you any objection,
Mr.. LawlOT, to giving the Times a
statement Of your California expert
ence for publication?
Mr.. LaWlOr-NOne in the least,
now that 1 have been so shamefully
slandered and stigmstiZed as black
mailer. I had intended to say moth
| ing about il, and have refused several
| newspaper men before, as l did not
want my name mixed up with the
| Fisk affair, and wanted TO say moth
ing to injure Josephine, but it is no
more than right that l protect my
own character, now that il has been
assailed, and L shall do 50 in court
of Justice.
R.-The story Of your elopement
with josephine was not true?
Mr.. L No, sir. In the first place
l was never in San Jose, where the
| elOpement is said to have occurred, in
my life. l first met the girl about
1868. She was young, pleasing, and
\ attractive, and at that time good.
liked her very well but had no en-
| gsgement with her and no desire to
| marry. Some time in 1854 l went
over to Virginia City, Nevada, to
| play an engagement, and it was while
| [ was there that Warren and his wife
| undertook the blackmailing operation
on the man Perley. l was not in the
! State of California at the time, and
can prove it. Moreover, never saw
Perley in my life to know him. When
| I returned to San Francisco Josie told
me all about it, and said she relied on
me for protection; that she did not
first know her step-iather and mother
were trying to make money of of
PeFley by using her. l told her l did
not know how was going to protect
her without marrying her, and that l
| was unable to do. she insisted, and
finally I did marry her to save her
from the evil influences of her own
parents.
R.-Then you did not reside with
her mother after marriage?
| Mr.. L.-NO. From that day to this
| 1 have never spoken to Warren, nor
did allow Josie to, and she never
saw her mother but once after that,
and that was Just before we left Cali
fornia for New York. I tried to keep
her good and pure, and for two years,
I will say this in her behalf, no wife
ever conducted herself more properly
toward her husband than she did to
me, Before we married l told her
that she might find some one richer
thanime, and, indeed, she might have
married almost whom she pleased in
San Francisco at that time, but she
declared she had rather live in cot
tage with me than in palace with
and person else. l was fond of her,
but never cared for her so much but
that l could give her up easily when
found she was going astray.
R.-When was that?
MIR. Lit was after we had ar
rived and were living in New York.
I had some reason to suspect her, and
told her one day if she did wrong |
should have nothing more to do with
her. saw that she was determined
to do wrong, and that could not stay
with her longer without becoming
the laUghing-stOck for everybody that
knew US, so l left,
R.-Wheu was that?
Mr.. L L-SOmetime in 1858.
R.-How long did you live apart
before you we're divorced?
Mr.. L.-Several months. After l
left her I continued to send her thirty
dollars a week for her support until l
had positive proof that she had gone
sstray, and then ! stopped. l told
her as long as she would lead virtu-
GUS life I would send her money for
her support, and should have been do
ing so until now, probably, If she mad
behaved herself.
R.-Have you seen her since your
divorces
Mr.. LII have not, and l have
ALWAYS wanted to forget her, and not
have my name connected with hers
any longer. 1t was the mistake OF my
life, marrying her, but any person
might have done the same. But L
have no iilieelings toward her, and do
not wish TO say anything that 7lll IN
lure her more than she is hurt already.
R.-Have you been interviewed !"
concerning this matter before2
Mr.. L.-hever before. At the time
of the "black Friday" the Herald sent
q man to Albany to interview me, but
I knew nothing about it, and told him
so. Since Fisk was assassinated the
Associated Press wished to interview
noe. They received orders from New
York to that effect, but did not wish
NV name connected with hers, ana !
have tried all / could to keep out OF
the affair.
R.-One question more, Mr.. Law
lor. Concerning your leaving Call
forniaP
MIR. L.-Yes; it is published that
Perley ordered me out of the State
within thirty days, on penalty OF
death, and that Mr.. Mcguire dis
charged me from his company. Both
OF those are the basest falsehoOds. AS
said, 1 never saw Perley to know
him, and never knew that he ordered
! me out of the State, il he did. AS to
Mr.. Mcguire, it is sufficient denial
Of the statement that he discharged
me, TO say that he rendered me his