New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-09
SACTIONS IN THE COURTS.
DIVORCE OBTAINED BY PERJURY.

DIVORCE OBTAINED BY PERJURY.
THE DECREE OBTAINED BY MRS. ELLA C. ELKING-
TON SET ASIDE BY THE CONTRACTION TO BE
TAKEN AGAINST HER ATTORNEY.
Francis ELLINGTON, who claimed to have been
captain in the British army arrested in civil ac-
ton brought BY Daniel Mullen, charged with fraud in
the sale OF diamonds. On February 2j 1880, while he
stl in Ludlow Street Jail, his wife, Mrs. Ella C..
ELLINGTON, who is sister Tennie" c. Cahn, pro-
cured the entry Of a judgment of divorce from her
husband for his alleged misconduct v nile in prison in
August and september. 1879 Tine next day she was
married to another As practicable, Mr..
Ellington proceedings to have the JUDGMENT OF di
v0rce aside. Justice Daniels handed down his de-
c;sOn, in the Supreme Court, Chambers, yesterday,
granting this motion. lie says that the report OF the
referee granting the divorce based only upon the
testimony of Charles NJ Brumley aud Dlniel II. Sharp
thai it has been shown that they do not live at the
places residence they named in their testimony, and
that the person who they SAID visited the defendant in
Ldlow Street Jail has not been inside that prison dur
lug the time named aud was living in PouRhkeepsic.
" Evidence has been gwen" the Justice continues,
"fcOm examination had in proceedings instituted
against the Sheriff showing that diSreputaOe aud diss0
ute nersnns were during this ueriod OF time admitted
to Gc jail; but, white tat shows degree Of deDOra
ZltiOn ana in absence OF discipline IN the jail
which not only highly cnlpable but disgrace
1u to the authorities, it does not show that
admitted 10 visit the defendant whom II Was not
proper should be allowed to call npon him." As to the
evidence OF she two upon which the Judgment
gwen the Justice says; "The CONCLUSION is direct and
well sustained that these two witnesses not only sw0e
falsely to their respective places OF residence but be-
yOnd that their evidence given for the purpose OF estao
fishing the dcfcndants misconduct wholly fabr-
Gated and without The least foundation In truth.
1t may he the affidavit of the plaintiff tends 10 cstab
the fact that tie defendant the husband OF an
other person at the time when he was married TO her
ii he was his marriage with the plalnh Is q nuty,
and 1t imposed of tine obligations Of wife upon
her But, however the act may be- II would not Justify
the judgment which has been recovered. II may
prove unfortunate to her that she married to an
other person The day succeeding the entry OF judg
mcnt this cdsej but that IL may be to her would
not Justify the Curt IN allowing Judgment to stand
which evidently the result Of perjury"
motion also made to punish Henry ]. smith, the
person who recovered the Judgment torncy, for
practising such without previous admission. Upon
tins point Justice Daniels says; There is sufficient
for believing that Il through his intervention
that this false testimony obtained ana given 10
Justify reference of this to the General Term OF
the Supreme Court for tie purpose II Smith s an at
tOrnry OF proceedings being taken against him TO strike
him from the rolls for bis m,cOnduct in procuring evil
dcnce of this description and I'm that way mpOs upon
the Court and obtaining Judgment which, under the cir.
cum stances, no right existed for prOnOuGcng."