The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-10-23
SOME QUEER WOMEN
Incidents in the Daily Life OF q
Lawyer.
WITH A GUILTY PATRoNEss
Case Where tae Laugh Was on ABE Hum
mel-Scandal and divorce Suits and
What Comes Gut of Them.
Copyright, 1892. ]

A lawyer Is like hackman. He stands
really TO carry you wherever you want to
20 and to take your money for so doing,
but ii he sees that he is going to run you up
against a stone wall he viii refuse to take
you in his care and will tell you that you
cannot go TO where You want to 20.
AT least sixty out Of every hundred cases
that are brought to lawyer have to be re-
fused on the ground that there is no cause
for legal action. Suppose, for example, q
woman meets you in the street and calls out
&c you in a loud tone Of voice:
Miss Blank, you are no better than you
ought 10 be''
Several other people have heard the re-
mark. and ycn are indignant at the covert
insinuation that you rush to your lawyer
and wish to begin 6 suit for damages.
The lawyer will tell you that the remark
Is capable of variety Of Interpretation 5.
That the other side will at once show that
no woman Is really aud literally any better
than she ought to be, nor indeed can any
mortal on the face of the earth make claim
TO condition so beatifc that she may be
described as being better than she ought to
be. So you see there is no ground for COM
tious one, will patiently explain TO you just
, how the case stands. and you decide not TO
60 on with the scandal suit which you had
contemplated.
The firm of Howe & Hummel takes,
may say, almost no scandal suits. A suit
of this kind dies out by itself. Proceedings
may be postponed Cor nine months, and at
the end of that time the parties have either
become reconciled or have lost all desire TO
prosecute.
Another class of that come to US in great
numbers, and which we are unable to take,
because OF the hopelessness of carrying
them to successful issue, are the divorce
suits which numberless women try TO
bring against their husbands when they
have no actual proof, but simply suspicious
which are groundless in most instances. A
woman Will come to us and say:
My husband is out late at night. When
he comes home he is the worse for liquor.
This thing has been going on for so many
years that patience has ceased to be
womanly virtue. l wish, therefore, TO get
divorce from him, or if that is impossiO ole
IN New York state, TO get ct least sepRra-
ton"
Now, 1t may happen that no one has ever
seen this man transcend the prUprietes
of what should aud should not be drunk,
except the woman hersslf. NO one will
bring actual testimony that he is out late
et night, so it is impossible 10 do anything
nj all in her case, because her testimony
as wife Will not be accepted against
her husband in q divorce case. The
usual expedient of the wife who claims
that she is badly treated by ner husband,
or that be has been guilty Of al act Of inf
deity, is TO hire a private detective TO
shadow his footsteps. Now, in court OF
justice, the testimony of these private de-
tectives does not weigh pin with either
the court or the jury 1t is claimed, and
perhaps rightly, that creatures so despIc-
able as to be willing TO spy on private indi-
viduals are quite capable of giving in falls
reports. Since they are paid to find out
something wrong about a person, they
must of necessity bring in report that
something has actually been wrong or they
will not get their pay.
Consequently, if one of these private de-
tectives should swear that he had looked in
over the transom Of the door of room and
had beheld doings quite sufficient 10 con-
stitute grounds for divorce in New YORK
state, his testimony would go for naughf,
anG his labor in climbing up to look over
the transom and the money which was
paid him by the wife for so doing would be
all thrown away, SO far as the case was
concerned in court.