Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-10-19

Chicago divorces have never been recognized
in Canada.
CHICAGO, October 18.-Advices from
Ottawa. Ont, are to the effect that the SEN
sation of the hour at the Dominion capital
is the announcement that D. B. Chisholm,
whose wife recently secured divorce in
Chicago to enable her to marry the Hon..
George Foster, Dominion Minister of
Finance, will apply to the Senate here at
the approaching meeting of Parliament for
divorce ON his own account. Failing to
secure divorce he will claim Mrs. Foster
as his wife and 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 were to say the least most
peculiar. The wife of David B. Chisholm,
now Mrs. Foster, was Mrs Addie c. CHS
holm. She is very handsome woman of
notable Intellectual ability and aristocratic
bearing. Her lawyer was S. Z. Dow, the
former law partner of Chief Justice Fuller
The case was tried by Judge Horton on June
1 in the afternoon.
A PECULIAR PROCEEDING.
A previous application had been made
for hearing, but when the Court dis
covered that Chisholm's name purported to
be signed to an appearance by him waving
service and consenting to a default, he made
some inquiries that resulted in a continu-
ance.
'Where is Chisholm" asked the Judge.
"Well, 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 does not wish his hiding place known"
How did you get his signature to this
appearance?"
1.-The paper was sent to him under cover
and he returned it by the same means"
'Does his wife know his whereabouts?"
'She does, but she does not wish to
divulge it"
"Well. have no information that this is
the defendants signature. I don't wish
Mrs Chisholm TO reveal her husbands
whereabouts if he is likely to be given over
10 the law, but there must be some proof
that this is his signature.
SATISFYING THE COURT.
81 can bring witness to prove that"
said Mr.. Dow.
Accordingly June A, Mrs. Chisholm and
her lawyer appeared again with James NJ.
Davis, brother of Mrs. Chisholm, who
said that Chisholm's signature was known
to him and the collusive agreement by
which Chisholm was not to fight the divorce
suit, was Chisholm's. He said that his SIS |
ter and Chisholm lived together in Hamil- |
ton, Canada, until 1888, when he fled to |
some place unknown.
under what circumstances, Davis was
asked.
1T was because of a misappropriation of !
moneys intrusted to his care. He appro-
priated the proceeds Of sales of mortgages to
which he had no right"
"What was his business ?''
He was attorney and president of an in |
surance company"
"He has never been to Canada since. to |
your knowledge ?"
HE has not I have been there every |
year to see my mother and he has not been
there, nor has there been any trace of him."
CAUSE OF HIS FLIGHT.
Mrs. Chisholm testified that she was mar
ried to Chisholm in August, 1864, and they
lived together until 1888. They had a son
Is years old who was in preparatory col
lege in Canada. She gave him no cause to
leave her, having attended well TO her duties
as wife.
''In general, what was the cause of his
fight?"
''The cause of his leaving was his getting
into trouble with his clients about money
matters"
The Court showed that his suspicious
we're not entirely allaved by the handsome
placid carriage by asking:
"How long have you lived in Chicago?"
Zone year, last January
"Did you come here from Hamilton?"
mo, from Ottawa
For the purpose of getting dlvorce?"
The Judge was visibly impressed with the
of Mrs. Chisholm and the in
egrlty OF her motives when she replied
irmly as she looked straight in the Judges
,Ye:
II did not come here for that purpose"
AN EVIDENT DECEPTION.
The Ottawa dispatch shows how court
,an be deceived. because she did come here
o get divorce in order to marry Hon.
George Foster, as is proven by the fact that
he divorce was granted in June, and she is
low the Hon. Mrs George Foster. The in
orination from Ottawa also makes the cir
umstances under which Chisholm con-
ented to an immediate trial of the case
eem questionable.
There IS no divorce in Canada except
hrough Parliament and international
question may arise as to whether the De-
ninion courts will recognize a Chicago
ecree. They have never done SO hereto
ore. and Mrs. Fosters only chance to get
ut of the muddle is to let Chisholm get his
ivorce from Parliament. Whether CHS
olm repudiates the alleged agreement al
owing his wife to get her Chicago divorce
5 not known.
rn r.rr-on ou.rr,r -,-. Ii