, 1874-01-21
LOCAL MISCELLANY,

aoopR1oH, THE DrvoEoE.tAwxEn
The following communication from A. Good
tioh, who has attained m unenyiablo notoriot,
In tho divorce practice, ID printed aIn,rly wltl
the purpose OF giving n representation OF htl
own ex-parse statement lilo oxpoauros which
havo appeared In The Tribune, Of tile caaek
IN. which ho waa mixod mp, wore mnttors brought
boforo tho Court, and they dolnnnd fuller IT.
vostigation than thoy hnvo had heretofore. Mr.
Goodrich profosBes desire that bis caBo should
be presented to tho Supreme Court, md 1t Ia To
be hoped that tho Attorney Gcnornl, to whom,
Judge Moore Inns retorrcd tho matter, will not
neglect 10 do it
y s IL e Ss'ff2s f o h s In commenting
on THO case Of Klino Kline, you nho certain a'1.
sions TO mo whieh aro untrue and unjust. Tla Mrs.
Kline has beon imposed ,on thero ID question, hut
that have In my Tay or mannor been instrumental
"a imposing upon her or have advised any oso to
!! to the entire satisfaction of any person that desires
t.. The power Of attorney was signed by Mrs. Kno
before Justice Of tho Pence who states Tint tho same
could not Se eeelse ':lSi Tho % rs nt@sson or Inow
:ociteT for slrs Kne, and q. IT, wilIeit, of tho sw
firm Of Wlett : Herring, came into my oiliee ani
without her authority told thom that had power
Of attorney, duly Acknowledged in every caso that
the porer q attorney 70 copy furtios % stated ' to
them q thst time that II the power Of attorney not
signed by Mrs. Kline, or II ehe had been Imposed upon
III any'wny or manner TO got her eIgnhturc. would
do anything In my power to assist them In sotting
Office read 70 me he affidavit of Mrs Kline and ono of
va satisfied that had been imposed sod 9 upon IL tho
assist him In setting aside the divorce. Bald Foley
then stated that II would do this hc would not nlo
tho afldavits. This conversation occurred IN the
Cullen and her mother. Bald Foley ned the nindasts
tho same afternoon. Tho next morning, when the
easo WAS caled tt was impossible for me- 10 be- pres
nership, and could not neglect a. aero wero SOW
eral po1sons waiting upon mo- :! also Ind case on
sorae sa e ea 10 a5e 5e ster Gfoes for employ an
~ reference to tho case Of snlonts y simonds, tho
facts, 70 far ~ ! know, arc a. follows: Marshall
divorce for him nbomt six mouths before bill was
nled informed him that could not obtain divorce
Tor him nnI he had resided here one yssr. After he
Ira Scott, Esq, Master ID Chsuccry, who refuaei 10
cient took the testimony that Was takon before the
Alaater and that only and submitted tho caso to the
Hon Joseph Gary who read nj Of tho testimony In
case a9d then md thoro granted the divorce over
So fat 80 citing mo before the Supreme Court to
haye my name stricken from the roll Of attorneys,
have NOT tho least objection, but In fact dahire m
Vestigation BY an unbiased Court, as 1 havo been
Judged e1-rsrto quito long enough. In reply 10 nll
say to my friends and acquaintaners Tint nevor have
Jun. 10, 1874. . A. GooDn1oH.
After tho action taken by Judge Moore with
to Goodrichs case, the public will
probably prefer to await tho decision Of tho 5u-
prerno Court before acquitting him on the broad
basis suggested above.