The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-05-06
SETTING ASIDE A DIVORCE.
JUDGE DANIELS ON a LAWYERS DU-
PLICITY AND FRA I'd,
MIR. and Mrs. Meaarae's Unhappy Married
Iife-A Compile Mutually seeking Sepura-
IONA Mannn MickedIX Ensnnreh


MIR. and Mrs. Meaarae's Unhappy Married
Iife-A Compile Mutually Seeking Sepu ra-
tion-A Woman WickedIv Ensnared
Alonzo and Mary Megarge were married
at the American Consulate In Havana IN 1862.
In 1872 on account of her health, Mrs Megarge
came to New York, and lived with her sister on
Staten Island In 1874 her husband came from
Cuba, and went to live with his mother on
Staten Island. Mrs. Megaree had also lived with
his mother for a year, until Just previous to his
arrival, when she went to her mothers house.
Mr. Megaree, on bis arrival, scolded his wife for
quitting his mothers house, and talked Of APP
plying for divorce on the plea that she bad
abandoned him. The wife replied that she was
willing that he should have divorce II she could
have q divorce at the same tlmo. Then he
promised to see a lawyer in New York, and learn
what could be done 10 the way OF getting mu-
tuai divorces. He afterward sent her to william
II. Gale, ut $40 Broadway, and he told her that
mutual divorce was obtalnape. Afterward
10 met her by appointments at Twenty-third
street ferry, to see her go ont OF the state by
that a ground Of abandonment as n basis for tho
divorce. But instead he Induced her to go TO
the Grand Hotel, saying that they were TO meet
ing the contemplated legal proceedings.
Lawyer Gale ana Nrs. McIarye arrived In tho
Grand Hotel early In the evening, and he took
her to rooms in the hotel on prctence of having
trivdte Interview with tho gentleman they
wero to NEE I; and in those rooms he detained
her against her Will, all night lie retired In ono
OF the rooms, and she sat up 10 another, until
she was liberated by him In tho morning. Her
asseyerit0n that she was involved I'm no act of
mise unduct while she was In tho Grand HOTEL
but tcmOnf tratcd against her detention, and de-
sired 70 return to her home, Is supported by the
declaration OF Gale, when asked whether any
thing improper had occurred between them,
Judge"
Alter. the night Of imprisonment In tho
hotel, Lawyer Gale Informed Mr. Segarge that
cilminAl misconduct G. uld, pTop1biy, he estab-
lishcd against Mrs. Meg re, but tuc husband
declined to ALLOW any such proceeding. Then.
duced to have her husband ar ested for deser-
ton and foiiing 70 support her, but the pro-
cecding was soon Discontinued. Exasperated
by this course, he Instituted suit against MS
wife for adultery, aud Gale employed lawyer
pcared and said thar she had no defence, think
lna that the action was base0 on abandonment
by her. Then, In her absence, two persons,
whom Gale had employed TO watch himself and
Mrs.. Meg rye from the ferry. testified that they
saw say her going to she Grand Union with man.
room together. The referee, on those facts, re-
ported In favor OF decree Of divorce, and a d.
yorce was granted by the supreme Court. Mrs.
Ncgarge, on learning the true state of the case.
moved that the judgment OF divorce be va
Gated, on affidavlts showing the facts TO be IA
here related. MIR. MegarRe appealed, and the
General Term OF the supreme Court affirmed
the order Yesterday setting aside the divorce.
Judge Daniels, in giving the opinion, rays
there can be no reasonable ground for doubting
Ms. hegarse's story. by the article and de-
coption OF Gale" say the Court, "whOm she
considered her own as well as her husbands
counsel, sue had been involved In the appear
ance OF guilt when no criminal misconduct In
fact existed on her part and on this Appearance
the Judgment for a divorce had boon obt ,inea
AZ inst her. y more hdgrant case of probes
slOuhl misconduct, duphcity, ana CRIME com
bined has never been eXhloited In any of
this description. Reasons have existed for sus-
pectng professional misconduct on the part OF
some practitioners In this class Of these cases.
but IT never was supposed to have extended 10
that extreme degree vi ctiminality shown M his
case. Unmittga ted deIravty and ingenuity to-
gether could hardly odd to It's criminal oaseness.
Its existence In THIS case must necessarily far
confirm the suspicious OF courts as to lead them
to sely watch ana cr1ticiso every proceeding
taken in an action for a divorce, IN order to
guard against all possible imposition. Nothing
tut that will prevent such actions from becom-
Ing tue instruments OF chicanery, fraud, anu
crime