Litchfield enquirer., 1881-03-10
More Complicated than Ever.

Eve are in receipt of the following letter from Arthur D. Warner, Esq, of West Corn wall, which puts a new phase on the Bailey matter. If hisstatement is correct, MT. Bai- ley has imposed grossly upon the General As sembly, although ill view of the women and children involved we think hat body did right in passing the divorce. and validating the mar riage or marriages which followed it.-ED. ESQ. s~z7s s@.-ss --5 s1ss-'ss.ss 'S.s.s
 WEST CORNWALL, Mar. 3d. 1S31
 IHr Etitor-Slr-In your last issue I saw an article under the legislative items entitled, "'Fhe complicated case of supposed divorce in Winsted of Mir. Chauncey F. Bailey" of that place, in which it is stated that in 1871 he en- pioyed lawyer (whose name is eharitably withheld) to get him divorce and that the lawyer represented to him (Balley) that he had done so, and that Bailey relying upon that statement went his way and married again and upon enquiry found the facts not to be true, and thereupon applied 10 the Legislature for relief, which was granted. As 1 am the lawyer (whose name was so charitably with held) rise to explain, and will state the facts as they were. h January, 1873, Mr. Chaun-. cey F. Bailey applied to me to obtain divorce from his wife, Hope Bailey, He also asked me what the fee would be. I told him, and also informed him that he must deposit one half the amount upon issuing the petition. Hesaid he would pay the officer the amount when he came up to serve the petition, as he had not the money with hIm at that time and the off, cer must necessarily go near the place where he lived to serve the papers. I then drew up the petition, had it served, and it was returned to Court at Litchield. He did not pay the officer, neither did he pay me, as have not seen him from that time to the present.
 After the cause was returned to Court, I wrote to Bailey to meet me at Litchfeld with his witnesses to get the divorce, and also to bring or send me some money He never replled to my letter. 1 then wrote him three times af- ter that to the same effect. but heard nothing from him. The cause was continued for five terms, think. and at that time began to grow sick of paying court and clerk fees, and 1 told MT. Wm. l.. Ransom, Clerk, to discon- tinue the cause as I had received nothing on it ana it had run nearly year and halt since it was entered on the docket. He accordingly erased it. As have never seen Bailey since he first applied for the divorce, nor have I heard from him, could not, and did not, tell him he had obtained decree of divorce.
 see by the accounts in yours and other pa- pers, that he stated before the Committee that it was in 1871 he petitioned for his divorce I dc not think he was married at that time, but still he might have been, but this much do know and can prove that it was not until 1873 that he first applied for divorce and was the one to whom he applied. I was not ad- mitted to the bar until April 9th, 1872, and did not commence practice until the 14th of same mouth. It was after that he applied for the divorce which he did not obtain for the reasons already stated.
 If you will please give this explanation space in your paper, and ask the Hartford Courant and Bridgeport papers to copy, you will confer favor on,
 Yours &c.,
 ARTHUR D. WARNER