The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1876-04-06
A NoyEL DECEPTION,
From the Rrooklln Enaln

ON January n, 1874, the suit Of Jean
cite H. Hammond against William
NJ Dean, for breach of promise of mar
riage, was called for trial In the Or.
cult Court, before Justice Pratt. The
damages were laid nj $40, 900.
The plaintiff, who sued through her
guardian, was very cOmely damsel OF
nineteen, residing with her father,
Edward {. Hammond, at n South
Eighth street, u, ID. The defendant
was man Of thlrty-six; aud a mer.
chant OF Third avenue New York. In
1877 Miss Hammond met Mr.. Dean at
q reception OF the Lexington Club, and,
az alleged, from that time he paid at,
tention 10 her and offered her mar
rlage. This promise, II was alleged he
refused to fulfil, aud hence the auiL
The testimony for the defense show
ed that Dean was willing to marry the
plaintiff. The Jury, after short ab.
Aenee, gave the plaintiff - 800. This
was on January u.
In February following defendants
counsel made motion for new trial
on the ground Of newly discovered
evidence, The aliidayIt Of one John
II, smith was put In, describing Nls9
Hammond as an abandoned creature,
with whom deponent had frequently
had Illicit intercourse, and as the
mother Of an Legitimate child. Let.
tiers In Che handwriting Of Miss Ham.
mond and addressed b Smith were ap-
pended to the affidavit. These letters
contained expressions grossly immod.
est, and such M no virluous girl could
employ.
On February 0, when the argument
for new trial was heard, Smith nut
In an additional affidavit, with more
OF Miss Hammond's rem arkable letters
appended. Other ailldavits proved
the handwriting TO be hers. Miss
Hammond, In her affidavit, denied the
accusations OF improperly with Smith
or any one else, and also denied hav-
Ing written any OF the letters shown to
be In her handwriting.
ES-Judge Cardoga, OF counsel for
the plaintiff, then solemnly arose and
read the affidavit of Dr. F0rdyce
Barker, ofeighty-hve Madison avenue,
New York, Clinical Professor Of Mid.
wlfery in Bellevue Hospital Medical
College. DR.. Barker deposed that he
had examined Miss jeanette II. Ham
mond, tho plaintiff, and found her to
be u virtuods giHl, Decision was re-
served at the time but Justice Pratt
subsequently denied the motion for a
new trial, aud the defendant compro-
missed by paying $1,000.
Two years have elapsed the money
was paid, and the parties have almost |
passed out of remembrance, although |
the main feature of the case-the |
charge Of impurltY against Miss Ham,
mond, and the affidavit Of DR.. Barker |
which nailed II as a lie--are distinctly
remem bered on account Of their pecu-
liar relations.
For some days back an Eagle re.
porter has observed Mr.. Millard, attor-
ney for Mr. Dean, busy around the
On being questioned, Mr..
Millard admitted he was there in con-
necton with the famous breach of
promise suit. With some reluctance,
he stated that they had discovered bes
yond peradventure that DR., Barker
and the Court had been shamefully inn
posed upon, and that, in their horrible
dilemma, the plaintiffs party had con-
c0cted a scheme as novel as II was in
furious. Mr.. Willard said that in the
examination conducted by DIR. Barker,
. younger sister was substituted In the
place of Miss Hammond, and hence
he remarkable afiidavits which az.
onished the defendants counsel, and
wen took the court by surprise. The
natter, 1t is said, is to be brought un-
Ter judicial notice, and Mr.. Deans
ounsel are preparing to make applica.
lon to the general term of the Supreme
'ourt for the diSbarment of the law
ers, who lent themselves to the dis
raceful fraud.