Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-10-21

She Gets . Divorce and Forty Thousand
DOllars-The End Of . Sensational Pro-
ceeding.

ceeding.
The Belt divorce case was concluded yester-
day in Baltimore, with q decree in favor OF Mrs.
Belt, formerly Mrs. Godfrey. This Is the case
in which number Of witnesses who testified In
this city against the fair fame Of Mrs. Belt sub
| sequently took the stand again and admitted
that they had perjured themselves. Judge
Fisher in Baltimore yesterday dismissed the
| suit of Mr.. Eugene Belt for divorce from Mrs.
Belt and granted q divorce q mensa ct thOrO to
Mrs. Belt from Mr.. Belt. By agreement, in
| stead Of an annual payment of alimoDy, Mr.
Belt will pay Mrs. Belt the sum Of $40, 900.
Mr.. and Mrs. Belt became acquainted at q
Maine watering place in the summer OF 1884,
old bachelor of Baltimore, and very wealthy.
Mrs. Godfrey was q lady quite noted for her
beauty, who was formerly well-known in this
gent solicitation. A few months after the mar
Rage Mr.. Belt took his bride to New Orleans,
Utterly
quently informed that her husband had re-
ceived printed account, published in a newspa-
In which Mrs. Godfrey and Mr.. Acklen, then a
Representative from Louisiana. figured. She
WI wrote her husband that she could explain 1t
all, but received no answer. Then she came on
to Baltimore, having obtained assistance from
her friends. but was refused admission to his
came temporarily insane. Upon recovering
divorce, OH the ground OF deSertiOn, and 1t was
upon her suit that divorce was granted
yesterday. The husband did not deny
the facts OF the desertion. He replied
by filing a cross-bill against her, alleg-
ing misconducton her part before her marriage.
The laws Of Maryland recognize misconduct be-
lore marriage as q ground for divorce. 1t was
In the effort to sustain his charge that the wit
nesses who confessed 10 perjury were employed.
Under the decree granted yesterday neither
party can marry.
The case was Of more than usual importance
In Washington, as 1t gave occasion for exposing
the manner in which testimony can be manu-
factured. especially where witnesses are exam
lned privately before commissioner or ex-
a1nlner. The witnesses who were obtained for
Mr.. Belt by private detective, named Cum
nlngham, swOre to number of statements in
dicating that Mrs. Belt had been q frequent
visitor to a certain house here, and that the
house was one of questionable character.
Mrs. Belt was represented by Mr.. Henry w.
Garrett, of this city, and her brother-in-law.
ex-Representative Willis, of New York. Mr.
Belts attorneys were Hon. William Pinckney
White and Col. Charles Marshall, of Baltimore
The admirable management of Mrs. Belts
cause before the commissioner in this city was
what exploded the whole plot to destroy her
reputation. Mr.. Garnett, who prepared and
conducted the case here, proved the utter alb
made the perjury of the witnesses so manifest
that most of them came forward and acknOw-
edged their shame. Cunningham Immediately
left the city and has not since reappeared here.
In bringing about this exposure Mr.. Garrett
did service not only to his client, but to
every one interested in the honest admtnistra-
ton of Justice.