New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-17
THE COURXS.
Ne,e- ioT, July II, 1875.

GRAVE CHARGES AGAINST An ATTORNEY.
A DECREE OF DIVORCE OBTAINED BY TIE GLoss-
Esr DECEPTION - sUBORNAnoN OF PERJURY
ALLEGED AGAINST WILLIAM II. GALE
In the suit of Alonzo Mcg9rge against Mary
A. Megarge an application recently made to Judge
Davis 10 aside the decree Of divorce AGAINST the vie,
aud to allow hc defend her su The story told in her
affidavit is somewhat extraordinary. She states III IL
that her husband aud herself had had difficulties and dis
putcs until al last in ignorance OF the law they agreed
TO be divorced If could be done by mutual consent
Sho anrcI TO William II. Gale, an attorney, when
tleucefcrward she supposed in Ter Ignorance OF the
law to DC acting equally fer herself and her husband
After some time he advised her TO for few days to
Ncv-Jorscy and she tCld him she would visit friend III
P.tc.son. lie met her at the Iwcnty-.hdst. ferry,
and induced her to so hotel under rctcnsc that ii
was important her He locked her ana himself III
two rooms connected t0eethcr and Notwithstanding her
alarm aud urcaties persisted IN Keeping be. theIe uih
morning, he occupying one room ana she the other'
AfcYward induced Ler 10 appoar before the referee,
and 10 state that another attorney, whom he Introduced
WAS authorized TO appear for her. II not until after
the decree that she discoyered, she states, tia; SIZE
lad been tric:el into divorce on the ground Of her
guilt and that the visit to the hotel was part vi sctihe
dc, scd by the attorney whom she supposed TO nave
been acting ia her interest
On this affidavit and accompanying proofs JUDGE Davis
has rendered opinion, of which the following IS the
Substance:
Tie complaint IN this action charges the adultery TO
have been committed Win Jarl.a II. BALDWIN al ne
Grand Union iID.u ths city. and the proofs before
te sufficient - justly his c9nclusioh tat
i@ all cations true. The e, cuce gftn vs. en-
and came from two persons, VINO Testified
HAT they lad the defendant accoiptny stranger
from Tue Twcnfy-iigdst ferry to the hotel and that
tu thee Ouk room anu registered himself ana de-
fealat 'Jas. II. bald Nin aud vile" Tb se Witnesses
say the defendant 10 the room win SAID person, aud
rem. d, q there together ill late hoLl.
II is shown Satisfactorily 10 that the person
who iegi-t rcd his name as jones IL BALDWIN was IN
1 t.rffs affA liz It..s
that had arranged with the tWO persons who
aupetr,du. witnesses Ia follow ami watc him. while he
induced the defendant G. accompany him from the derry
that hUt, l. on the prteXt o. meet who
tNcsu hci sell and her husband for "a divorce the
ground oi abandonment that these peT-ou- 80 employed
clerk III is own Office and youn lirud ~ -uc,
CLERK and that by prctoncerted arrangement win SAID
Gale for The purpose OF being Witnesses they followed the
said attorney, and kept watch upon HIM while be ncnt
turou u the various feps Necessary establish facts
The defendants .idasIt that a gToss frslud
prlCiiCci upon her IN inducing her 10 20 To- thc
hOici and remain there she did, an that
no criminal acts took place between Lcfsc. aud tbc
states that said william H. Gale, the attorney, after ad
uniting that hc was the person VINO passed james H.
Baldwin ~ the Grand Uuiom Hotel on being asked N
thing ~ Improper character occurred between
himself and the dci nant replied that III. ~ had not
IGc 1davts the part OF the defendant clearly Snow
that the attorney william III. Gale the person vhO
panied the defendant ~ the Grand Union Motel, and one
Of watched the persons by teate
states the SAME fact
II thus appears that the divorce obtained by the
was praciiced upon Court by the simuniIon OF ap
parent Of adultery. when. In fact. such act
commit ed. satisfied from the papers that the de-
PENDANT supposed that the case prosecuted AZ 'inst her