Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-25
Another Chapter in the Famous
Pendleton.CuIlen Case.
lie Claims TO Have Been a Victim OF
Fraudulent Divorce Mill, and
is Seeking Revenge.
The Story of thu Divorce, How and When
Secured, His Movements Afterward and
Up to the Present lime.
SEEKING REVENGE.


the mill. He is no less person than
William s. Pendleton, who, when he
fought his divorce, was mayor OF Fort
Worth, Tex. The men who, 1t is said,
sold the divorce were w. Duryea Hughes.
who says he is brother-in-law CT United
states Attorney Hughes, and Patrick II
campbell, both attorneys practicing in
this city. 1t appears that the document
claimed to be divorce. and for which
Hughes s. Campbell received S265, is
forgery. The forgery 10 unquestionable.
The connection OF Hughes with the pro-
curing of the counterfeited seal is posi-
tive. AS TO CampbelI's completely there
j. not such positive proof. The bogus
divorce is dated August 20. 1889, and
lears a counterfeit seal OF the Cook
county divorce court. Mr.. Hughes
protests that he thought that his
correspondent in Chicago was all right.
The bogus seal of the court, II is said,
WAS made by the Nashua Print works of
this city. For forging the seal of any
court of record, for forging certificate
or authenticated copy of any decree OF
any court, or any document, or any
writing purportlng to be such Il decree,
!s punishable by not less than FIVE or
more than ten years in the state prison.
!; WAS upon the strength of this frGudu-
lent divorce, which he says he supposed
to be genuine, that he created such
sensation by clipping 20 New Orleans with
i beautiful telephone gIrl of Fort Worth
and marrying her.
PESDLErON's STORY.
Srocial to the Gazette
NEW YORK, Dec. 22.-Mr. W. S. Pen
dleton, former mayor of Fort Worth,
tells his story of how he got his divorce
from Hughes s. Campbell as follows,
part told by himself and part by his
frends): lie read the following Rdver-
t.sement in the New York Herald:
Hughes s. Campbell, attorneys at law;
divorce laws of ali states.
1t appeared to him, he says, that the
firm was doing Il legitimate divorce bust
ness. He wrote to them and told them
that he desired to get divorce from his
wife, and asked what state it would be
easy 10 get it in. In reply the firm
wrote, asking what grounds he had for
divorce; if it was cruel treatment, or
desertion, or adultery, they could easily
and cheaply obtain it in almost any
state. MIR. Pendleton wrote again, tell
Ing them that If he had any of these
grounds he could as well get divorce In
Texas, and would not have written TO
tAem. II was plain
INCONPArIBIIITY OF TEMPER
that he alleged, and nothing else. His
wife was n good woman, but he could
not get along with her. He asked
whether the firm could get divorce for
hun on the ground he named, and how
much it would cost. In reply he got q
letter to the effect that IL would be an
easy matter to get divorce, and that 1t
would cost him $3.50, of which Sl25 must
Ice paid at once and the rest when the di-
vurce was obtained. Altogether. Mr..
ItndletoI says, q half dozen letters
passed between them, and then he sent
on Sl25 and instructed Hughes s. Camp
hell 10 90 head and get the divorce. In
the latter part of July, 1889, he started
Tor New York himself, and called on the
lawyers. He does not remember eX-
nctly the language used, but il was to
the effect that matters were in good
shape, and that the matter would be
SPEEDILY PROCURED.
They led him TO believe, ne SAYS, that
the suit was going on here. He had no
idea that il was at Chicago that they in
tended TO bring TIE suit, or rather date
the divorce papers. He called OCCASION
El4y III lnelT ONCE anu WIS assured tDat
the suit was getting along finely and
would end III his favor some time in
August. They asked him for $40 on ac-
count. He says they told him it was 70
pay the expenses of advertising the no.
tee, being so far away from Texas it was
necessary to serve the notice of the suit |
on Mrs. Pendleton by publication. He |
paid the money. In the latter part of
August he received Il letter from the firm
telling hiTl TO call at the Office at once. |
He did call the next day and they con- !
r-atGlnted him and handed 10 HIM two |
copies of IL decree of divorce alleged to |
have been granted in Cook county, Ill. |
This was the first time he had heard that |
the suit had been brought in Illinois. !
Both copies were i'll regular form and |
were certified 10 by the clerk of Cook |
county CAT least his name WAS signed to |
lEem) and Pendletou says he thought it |
was all right. When be read them over,
however. he discovered that in the
decree his name was written
WALTER II. PENDLEToN
instead of William s., and that of his |
wife was also wrong: He said TO |
Hughes: Here, Hughes, this will |
never do, you have made "a mistake in |
the names
iugDes appeared 10 DC surprised, ana |
said:
"Well, that's funny-I'm sure it is
not our mistake. III telegraph out to
Chicago and have our correspondent
look into the matter. Come around
again in the course OF Il week.
Before he left he had q little private
talk with Hughes, and Hughes asked
him If there was any danger of the mat
ter beng examined into. Pendleton
asked him why he wanted 20 know, and
lie replied that it was of no account, but
when direct fight was made
divorces of this kind were set aside.
Mr.. Pendieton, being criminal law
yer, knew that this was SO. He called
at the office again before the week was
cut and Hughes handed hun two more
copies of the divorce decree. They were
Identical with the two he had given 10
him on his previous visit, but the names
had been
CORRECTLY SPELLED.
Mr.. sPeudleton says be was satisfied.
Now, Mr.. Pendleton, said Hughes,
you have two copies of the deere cone
for Yourself and one for your wife. Shall
we send the one for your wife or will you
take il and give 1t TO her yourself?'
81 will take it MYSELF said Mr.. |