New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-01-24

o,d NOT Knov Of Mr. Dewitt at ALL Papers were
drawn up in cross-suit by Mr. Langley, in which
Mr. Dewitt vas named rs correspondent, but ti"y
never served.
The case for the plaintiff was outlined by ex-Judge
REYNOLDS WHO said that the parties TO the suit were
married ON scptember 90 1851 and had three children
The grievances OF the plaintiff justified her In coming
before Jury for redress for the injury done TO her
and her children. The judgment IN the case "ouo
be given by judge in Special Ternl' ana IL was ior
the Jury 10 find simply on the question ol. LAT l.
There were five charges against the defehoah' III
pIcating an unknown woman. 1t was not easy "
get evidence IN such cases, ard private detectVe
had to be employed. His evidence would not DC
unsupported This detective had followed Mt. Lang
lev and had finally found him going TO the uh''eo
States Hotel In New-lork on October H. where hc
secured q room and met woman lie holei iess'e'
bore The name William Lawlor' In his hahu"iiuhs'
and II would be shown that the handwriting was mat
OF the defendant. Experts would testify 10 TINS. 1t
would be shown that Mr.. Langley was at ti.e hoe'
under Il false name, showing his CUNT
The first witness called Charles Doscher
nr,vote detective OF No. SO Carltona ave- lie testi-
fed ,nat he was employed by Mrs. Langley to watch
ber husband last fall, and that ON OCTOBER Il he
had seen him enter the United States Hotel nj Full
Ton and pearl SITS. New-York. Mr. Langley had gone
q, e office and had written in the register, ana had
maid for n ROOM getting 4 key for It. lie had then
conc IN n room on the main door, and about three
ouor,ers OF an hour later "A woman had come from the
room and had left the hotel. The witness had seen
Mr. Langley coming from the direction OF the room
a nSS Minutes later lie the entry In the register
mado by Mr.. Langley. 1t was "W. LAwlor ana Idy'
vewor,,u Two or three weeks later the witness had
torn the leaf from the register. II was produced III
court and put in evidence
On cross-examination the witness admitted 'h't
he had stolen the leaf from the register ana hau kept
II for week before he had given II TO MIS- Langley
He had afterward seen the woman VINO was II 'Ae
hotel co to No. pa Fifth-ave.
Arthur Wells who was hallboy In the hotel last
,or testified TO answering call at the room where
~ Iawiorn and his companion were on oclooer -
IIo had seen Mr.. Langley and idenuned MN as me
man who registered as Lawlor." ne nau IT." :,
rnman's voice I'm the room when ne answered. .ns
Iii and mo had given an order to the Clerk but lad
-, no,hinr 10 the room. The witness created u
otIon i'm The courtroom by admitting thal ne nnu
committed perjury IN signing an anaaNi taI - y,
Langley was not the man VINO reglstereu do , III
In, h. said his employer at the hotel hreate.o n,i
with discharge II he did not make the aiua,t, anu
MD that n would be worth several hunur,u uoil'
10 DO So He had made counter aiildaNlt p'loic.
lie was directed by the Judge to remain Ill a''chu'e
al the trial. -. 81. =, -. r-ritod states
Margaret Grady. n chambcrmald AT the i!i a., u
JIofr last summer, testified 10 seeing maj, neIr NJ
- womnn She was unable 10 identily nm as ~, ~,
IoncIcv from his photograph. but said that ~ uie
Lnmsey i ,hn conrt Yesterday noon she walking
Win Mrs Langley, when she saw man anu a ' NJ
There Is the man ] saw at inc lio,i' anu '
langley replied {: "That Is my husband. 49,, vror,
The case will occupy seNeral uals' a" ~, int,l
fosmonv I'm regard 10 the handwriting Oh Tue no''i
registry will be introduced