The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-10-20

TIL 5IOESdu, COIOItt, CldSo OLatOA'
Especial TO THE HERALD-Examtner Dispatch
CHICAGO, Oct. ia dispatch from
Ottawa says: ''The sensation of the hour
at the Dominion capital is the announce
ment that D. B. Chisholm, whose wife re-
Gently secured divorce in Chicago to en-
able her to marry the Hon. George Foster,
Dominion minister of finances, will apply
to the senate here at the approaching meet
ing Of parliament for divorce on his own
account Failing to secure divorce, he
will claim Mrs. Foster as his wife and will
demand that she leave Foster"
The divorce referred to was granted by
Judge Horton June last, under circum-
stances that at that time, without the light
now shed on them, We're, to say the least,
most peculiar. The wife of David B.
ChrishOlm, now Mrs. Foster, is Mrs. Addie
e.. ChrishOlm. She is very handsome
woman, of notable intellectual ability and
r-aristCcraIic bearing. Her lawyer was S.
x. Dow, the former law partner of Chief
Justice Fuller. The case was tried by
Judge Horton June l, in the afternoon. A
previous application had been made for a
hearing. but when the court discovered
that ChishClm'S names purported to
De signed to an appearance by him waiv-
ing service and consenting to a default, he
made some inquiries that resulted in a con-
tinuance. where is Chisbolm!" asked
the Judge.
We'll, he is in hiding" answered Mr..
Dow. ''YOu see, your honor, his home was
in Hamilton, Canada, but he got into some
trouble there and was obliged to flee. He
doesn't wish his hiding place known"
How did you get his signature to this
appearancer
the paper was sent to him under cover
and he returned it by the same means"
docs his wife know his whereabouts ~
She does, but she does not wish to di-
yulge it."
Wei, shall have to have information
that this is the defendants signature. /
don't wish Mrs Chisholm to reveal her
husbands whereabouts if he is likely to be
given over to the law, but there must be
some proof that this is his signature
Il can bring a witness to prove that -
said Dow.
Accordingly, June 4, Mrs. Chisholm and
her lawyer appeared again with James H.
Davis, a brother of Mrs. Chisholm, who
said that Chisholm's signature was known
to him, and the colluslve agreement by
the divorce suit was Chisholm's.
He said that his sister and
Chisholm lived together in Hamilton,
Canada, until 1888, when he fed to some
place unknown.
Under what circumstances?'' Davis was
asked.
1T was because of misrepresentation of
moneys intrusted to his care. He appro-
priated the proceeds Of the sale of mort
cages to which he had no right"
What was his business!"
He was an attorney and president of an
insurance company"
Has he ever been to Canada since to
your knoWledge!n
He has not l have been there every
year to see my mother, and he has not been
there nor has there been any trace of him -
Mrs. Chisholm testified that she was
married to Chisholm in August, 1864, and
they lived together until 1888. They had a
son eighteen years old who was in pre-
paratory college in Canada. She gave him
no cause to leave her, having attended well
TO her duties as a wife.
in general, what was the cause of his
h!ght!'' asked Judge Horton.
1.-The cause of his leaving was his getting
into trouble with his clients about money
matters
The court showed that his suspicious
were not entirely allayed by the handsome
compliments placid carriage by asking:
Elbow long have you lived in ChicagOf'
Zone year last January"
did you come here from Hamilton"
mo, from Ottawa"
For the purpose Of getting divorcel''
The Judge was visibly impressed with
the truthfulness of Mrs. Chisholm and the
integrity of her motives when she replied
firmly as she looked straight in the judicial
eye: II did not come here for that pur-
pose"
The Ottawa dispatch shows how court
can be deceived, because she did come here
30 get a divorce in order to marry Hon.
George Foster, Dominion minister Of
kfinance, etc, etc, as is proven by the fact
that the divorce was granted in June and
she is now the Hon. Mrs. George Foster.
Tire information from Ottawa also makes
the circumstances under which Chisholms
consent to an immediate trial of the case
seem questionable. There is no divorce in
Canada except through parliament, and an
international question may arise as to
whether the Dominic courts will reco gnize
O Chicago divorce. They have never done
so heretofore, and Mrs. Fosters only
chance TO get out of the muddle is to let
Chisholm get his divorce from parliament.
Whether Chisholm repudiates the alleged
agreement allowing his wife to get her
Chicago divorce is not known.
To insure a hearty appetite and increased