The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-04-01
PdILTNE LUCC.rs DIyORCE.
Her Lawyers Ccnsurcd for their Negligence
While Conducting her suIt.

Pauline Iucca's suit against her lawyers
in her divorce suit for damages for having mis-
managed il. was the subject Of decision 10y the
General Term Of the supreme Court Yesterday.
ON her appeal from the dismissal Of her COM
plant on the trial The lawyers Ncwoomhe and
Lcvcntrtt. agreed in March. 1873. to procure for
her a divorce from her husband. Count Adoph
Won Rhadc. one of them TO 20 TO Berlin to get
the necessary evidence. They were to receive
9 800 in cash. and $4,000 when the decree was
entered. within three months. The dccrco was
procured IN June following and the 81 200 paid.
and the fair cantaricr was the same day mar
ricd in the Office of her attorney to Emil Joseph
Maria. Baron Won Wahofren. In March. 1874.
the decree Of divorce was declared irregular.
though not set aside. and Won Rhade was per
mittcd TO come in and make his defence. and
she was allowed To put ia u supplemental COM
plant. The case was never brought Ia trial
hut Won Ehale procured "A divorce from his
VIE IN Berlin and has since married Adrlheid
GrOsrl. an tr,-s.
In her suit against her lawyers Nine Lucca
claims that through their unskiiful manage
mont and in"Ne disable ncnigcnc" she not only
iuilrd io procure un 'ifsTunl lud- mrnt. hut was
in 'luding 81 900 in defending Won RliHars di-
Nprer suit i'm Berlin ana $4,000 expended in OPP
posing his Efforts IN setting aside the decree
The irregularities upon which Won Rhade sc-
cured TIE opening Oi the judgment were that
tho service of summons 10y publication wis not
properly executed; no proof was given le'fore
the = i"r"c 81 tho inst ''s Of marital iuidrlty
alleged ia the complaint. hut OF others occur
ring subsequent tu the commencement of the
"a uon. ami the judgment WAS entered without
containing tue ~unuuu- in the action.
Judge Davis m giving the opinion OF tho
Court, yesterday. ord rrins "a new trinl. said A.
" Til" irrr. ularitc~ could b" attributed only TO
gross nHglEru' ON the part of the attorneys.
II was manifest that Nine. Lucca. in rowing ON
her divorce. and marry ing again, had prevented
the Court IN 1874 from absolutely NAcating the
decree. II did. however. put the judgment in
the condition that II would be II no avail 10 her
unless il was subsequently decided on the trial
that the imprlprictic- alleged IN the origi-
nal or supplemental complaint were
proven. This fact tended cOnclusively 10
cstah sh that Mt the time of the
payment " the 1900. her lawyers Were not en-
titled 10 any portion of IT,. As 10 SO much Of the
damages ns were claimed for the alleged NAL
practice. the evidence was sufficient to have
been submitted to the jury. The law requires
that every attorney and counsellor shall possess
and use adequate skill. and that he shall en-
pluy II IN every case. and he il liable IN dam
ages If a casc misrarrir- in consequence II cul-
pghlr ncgligcn 'e or gross ignorance Oh his part.
II was apparent that the Judgment in tho Iii
vor'e suit was not opened from favor Ia Won
khade. hut because of N" gross irregularities
IN pro urlns H. and n WAS in tenlrrnN So Ia tho
peculiar position ot Nine. LueDH that the Judg-
mcut was not altogether st aside. In these
days. when lawyers are mad" with such ca-.
and rapid facility. their unforiunHt" clients
ought not to he deprived 81 such prot"0 tiou as
the right II acton Tor malpractice can secure.