New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-12-27
THE COURTS.

THE CURIOUS ROBERTSON DIVORCE CASE.
DECISION BY JUDGE VAN H0EsEN AS TO TIE SUB
sTTTUrIoS OF COUNSEL
Pbpbe Robertson separated from her husband,
Westmore K. Robertson in 1870, and seven years
afterward brought an action for absolute divorce
against him. The papers wese not served upon the
defendant and the divorce was obtained without
his knowledge. his home ut the time being IN Ne
vada. but unknown 10 the plaintiff Eight days
before the divorce was granted the plaintiff was
married to Richard &. Fellows. a lawyer of this
city. who did not know her previous life
and supposed her to he a widow. Last Spring he
separated from his wife and sought release from his
marriage TO her by attempting 10 have the judg-
ment in the divorce from Mr.. Robertson opened aud
annulled. Mr.. Robertson was sought by detectives.
brought to New-York and persuaded TO carry on the
action on the grounds Of the non-service of the
papers, and also of the adultery of the wife by her
marriage before judgment of divorce. w. b.
Van Wyck was engaged as counsel. but Mr.
Robertson was assured that the expenses would be
borne by Mr.. Fellows. subsequently Mr.. Robert
son concluded TO abandon the proceeding. but
neither Mr.. Van Wick nor Mr.. Fellows was willing
to let II drop. motion was therefore made in the
COurt OF Common Pleas Chambers. a few days ago
tn have W. ". Badger substituted as attorney for
Mr. Robertson. THIS was opposed by FREDERICK
Smyi II, n being claimed that Alr kODertsun WIS
acting in collision with his wife.
Judge Van Hoesen handed Town his decision yes
teriay. IL this he saws:
Ii is cone'usiv cly proved that the Defendant
employed w II. Van Wick t0 take proceedings Tor
the reversal for the vacafinC of th" Judgment IN
this action. II is evident that the defendant has
changed his mind since he instructed Mr. IN
Wyca 10 prosecute such proceedings and that he
is now desrOu, that the Judgment of divorce sfll
stand He applies for order substituting Mr.
Badger as his attorney ~ place of Mr. Van WICK.
There Is no nOssIDle objection 70 this II Mr. Van
Wvck be paid. Where an order Of substitution
Il asked. n VIII not be granted until the
attorney who has been acting has been paid. Inc
attorney cannot recover however. for any services
rendered after his client has requested HIM not 70
acr. There must q reference therefore. 10 asccr-
whether Mr. Van WICK agreed To act grainiicusly
for the defendant IN attacking the Judgment.
do MOI feel called on 10 make any order
s;aving Mr. Van Wyek's proceedings shall leave
IL 10 General Term 70 retrrmne whether r not
Mr. Van Wyck or Mr.. Smyth shall be heard. II
NAV be that the Court will hear them as Gmic
cHriU. Ii is certain that before Judgment the
Court would pause before granting d.
vorce if such state Of facts exists
ton; and n may he mat the General Term
will deem II its duty 10 consider whether
q defendant who makes oath that III rs nof guilty.
of the adultery charged upon HIM, who has never
had an opportunity of ryug the issue IN the cause,
who avaIls himself cf hls right To appeal from the
Judgment pronounced against him without his haV-
mg been heard, ought 10 he permitted TO make "A
winch. If his oath he triIe. ought not 10 nave bec
granted shall he allowed to stand. i ne plalniir
can suffer no injury from the presentation OF this
question 10 the General Term"