New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-02-13
THE FORGED BROOKLYN DIVORCES.
ADAMS THE DIVORCE LAWYER, NOT TO BE foOND
puRstrING TIE INVESTIGATION.

ADAMS THE DIVORCE LAWYER, NOT TO BE foONN
PURSUING THE INVESTIGATION.
The investigation of the faudulent ui honnty
Turned ont with the aid of John &; Law a deputy
clerk of the Supreme Court In Brooklyn, was o IN
tinued Yesterday, but no arrests were au;o nos "a
der various names the lawyer wnU annears in ali
The cases of fraud and forgery so lar H %
He could not be found His real name Is sald 10 oe
E Edw. Doe MsF@ as sa John Yard
r +. Andrews, NJ. f. Adams and HefDert AZ.
drews District-Attorney Ridgwny visited aud no'
office and was amazed az the eVluenoeo yere filed
with records and there were thousands oi S etc
asking chow much the whole thing WIZ COST en- ~
connecting Law with the forgeries, taken 10 Gor
nection with the evidence given by Adams,s clerk
and Sots Munro Gd M6p Aaam
Broadway Room 8, opposite fost o!"oc' %.
NEw-YoRK, Feb. z, 1884.
nn,p SIR: am afraid Davis has been played, as you
saw win see what can do with him send oreT dnV~u
you ngS S reoo oy for Fight SLY OF Andrews and
Waller Unless they have my otneh authority they arc
IN. g." Yours truly" NJ .n,Ns.perJ. II. A.
Tho initials start for Jacob II. Anderson; the cor
ored messenger Office boy, IN whose h'nu "iA'--e
Hsn M County Clerk Barnard found the follow
inr cases in which forgeries are PLAIN; Josepn w
De Lamara vs. Ellen H. De 1d Lamar Ss Davis. Barr
Va Barr, G. +. +. Rundlett vs. Francis po,l II.
Rnndlett Riley vs. Riley Boyntont h VS., Dog sTe
tom In r 1eS fGSWng the fled
d dPofarSe Va, Lafarge Nelson. VS.. Nelson.
Baitam vs. Baltam. MADDEN VS.. H9dden. n,,,,s
IL was found that in the case OF Davis vs.. LAWS
tba dafendont saw the published summons anu ap,,
reared with lawyer and eight witnesses ~ 9a
The case before Law as referee, stting aC 10,
Roadway The case was indefinitely huJoudrIt,e;u
~, Tim and nothing more was heard of 1t. inns
appears to have been the regular CUSTOM Miot %S
defence was interposed noes Of I5tbam VS..
Latham an order for service by puDnedtlon m"5
granted Afterward the copy OF IL ulsapl si
from the County Clerks ollce, Is wi tronbe n
IaJyver vent TO the Office to see the papers
in The case and having secured them carIeG men
when not seen. In Adamss once were coP d I;Iis
newsnaners from all parts of the country, ana Ulls
for advertising showing that his operations vi III
carried on in all the States and Territories; h
nsuol charge was from 800 to D2OO. In ths
case of Williams vs.. Williams the divorce, obtained
before Law as referee, sent to the plaihtln IN
Indiana, marked $500 Z. o. d." II was retuIneu'
The esamination of Law will take place next
week
THE VERDICT IN THE COLLYER CASE.
Tho ircuost IN the case of Thomas Collyer and his
wife was continued at Laurel HILL l.. l., yesterday
Professor Maurice n. Miller of the University Med
cal College, of this city, testified that ne nau of
Thomas aud Kate Coliyer and OF Dennis CoWley
and that he had discovered arsenic In each more IN
a D"Ts' box Of rough on rats" which he had
examined contained nothing but pure, arsenic.
Dr. W. j. Burnett and DR.. III, hltchG 1sw
was ELECTED. Mrs. Lang was recalled but her
testimony was not important After PREF de de-
liberation the jury found That Catherine UUSS ut
whether Intentionally or accidentally administered
cannot be determined. That Thomas C9llyer came came
to his death by poisoning by, arsenic, administered
nv some person or persons unknown"
Immediately after the verdict Coroner Robinson
went TO Justice Mcdonald at Newtown, TO with
draw the charges against John and Annie C0wley,
bnt the Justice would not discharge the prisoners
until he had heard from District Attorney Fleming
II is now generally believed that Kate Coliyer
and while partially insane poisoned her husband
and then herself.