The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-03-22

In Justice Jones court yesterday the
jury in the Brown-Lamar case returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff Brown al
lowing him s113 of the 1886 for which he
sued the defendant.
Some time in the fail of 1891 Mrs
ShmutZ applied 10 the district court for a
divorce from her husband, who was a
cashier in the bank of John J. Lamar at
Mankato. Mrs. Shmutz employed d. NJ.
Brown OF this city for her attorney and
Lamar assured Brown that il he obtained
the divorce whatever costs were made he
would see that they would be paid.
Mr.. Shmutz employed j. F. Casey as his
lawyer and fled Il cross petition to that OF
his wife accusing her OF intidality IN the
marriage relation. He also commenced a
habeaS corpus proceeding for their child.
Both of these proceedings were suisse
quently Withdrawn by MIR. Shmutz and
the divorce granted TO the wife.
For this service Brown has already re-
ceIved SO from Lamar and $40 from Mrs.
Shmutz He claimed In his petition that
there was still due him S213S and that La
mar was the man to pay the bill since he
had guaranteed it.
Evidence was produced from all sources.
Quite n number of the lawyers of the city
were brought into court 30 tell what they
thought were reasonable charges for the
different items in the bill. TIE average
price was somewhat lower than Mr..
Browns charges. One lawyer stated that
he would not have done the kind of work
that the sueing lawyer had done for a good
sized fortune.
The items of the bill were for letter
writing. consultations, procuring letters,
procuring witnesses VINO had to be han
died secretly end in the night time, and
for watching the Whereabouts Of
Mrs. Shmutz and reporting the same to
Lamar and Tor securing for Mrs. Shmutz
a place TO work.
reason for Lamar's guaranteeing the pay
ment of the fees was due to IA criminal
alliance between him and the lady obtain
ing the divorce. The testimony produce
to prove this allegation was in the nature
of letters written by the husband and the
direct testimony of Brown.
The defense produced as evidence other
letters written by the husband aud by the
att orneys in the case, and I he papers which
were missing from the envelope supposed
TO contain the files in the old Case OF 1891.
Lamar aud Mrs. ShmutZ took the witness
stand also and gave testimony.
Ia the letters witten by the husband TO
his attorney he instructS him to stop pro-
csedings as he has had consultation with
us WIG tudb MS ACCUSATIONS
were made in fit of anger
IL seems that Mrs Shmuiz applied for ad-
mission to Hypatia aud was refused
Her husband in re-
ply To communication of hers
written after the divorce was granted.
writes that he has read the story of Hypa-
tia and that she should bear up under tie
snub of society, leave the vile town in
which she is aud return to him for that
affinity between them still drew him to
her.
Ia letter to Mrs. Toler, president of
the divorced husband writes that
t The club could boast nobler woman
ne would be proud to be her hus-
band and that the one whom they
bad rejected was pure and faithful. also
hat Casey was noy to be believed for he
VS. n social iepeT."
Quite a crowd filled the room and list
,ned patiently and closely to the argu-
neuts, which were red hot. The one at
,orney claimed that the bar WAS lowered
through the low work of the second class
awyers who crowded the profession aud
hen betrayed the confidence of their
clients and heaped upon them vile abuses,
iragging the fair name of innocent wo-
neu ia the dirt and muss of false accuse
ions. The other attorney claimed that
he accusations were true and that the de- |
endaut was a demon who should he made |
)ay for his deviltry.
After being out something less than an |
lour the verdict OF the jury wss given for /
lie plaintiff 10 the amount of Sil3 placing /
he costs of the case upon the defendant.