The record-union., 1895-07-22
PETER STORTZ As PATSY BOLIVAR.
The Alleged Sins of Lawyer Wharton
Fall Upon Him.
Wharton Examined on a Charge OF
Fraud and Released by JUS
tice Henry.

The preliminary examination of z. T.
Wharton, the attorney. charged with
having uttered false affldavits in the di
vorcs case of Addie Hoxie against Charles
Hoxie, and also in the divorce case in
which Wharton was plaintiff and Hattie
Wharton was defendant was held in
Justice Henry's court on Saturday.
Peter Stcrtz, who it was alleged signed
the at1idavits sworn to before Wharton
as Notary Public, that he had served
summOnses on HoXie and Mrs. Wharton,
testified that he did not sign the Wharton
affidavit, and that he did not tell Whar-
ton that he had served the summons on
Mrs. Wharton. He said he only signed
will which Wharton executed to his
wife. Wharton, he said. advised him to
say that he had put the summons under
Mrs. Wharton's door.
Wharton's wife took the stand, but the
defendant would not give his consent to
her testifying against him. Under the
law wife cannot testify against her hus-
band, nor husband against his wife
without the consent Of the other.
John Haub, a restaurant keeper, testi-
fed that StortZ told him he had gone
to Mrs. Wharton's house to serve the
summons and found her drunk. On an
other occasion Stortz informed the wit
ness that he had put the document un der
Mrs. Wharton's door. Finally he said he
did the latter.
William Land, Henry Rubenstein and
number OF others testified that Stortz's
reputation was bad, and that they would
not believe him under oath.
w. ii. LaysOn testified that Stortz told
MIN, In " harton's presence. that he had
showed the summons under Mrs. Whar-
toms door. Witness told Wharton til at
the paper was not served properly, and
Wharton asked him what he should do
about 1t. Mr.. Layson said he always be-
lleved that w harton was innocent. Whar-
ton had told witness that he had known
Stortz for six years, and that the latter
had served the summons.
Wharton testified that Stortz in
formed him that the summons was prop
erly served on Mrs. Wharton. Witness
said he then made out the certificate and
took Stortz's oath to the affidavit. Before
he gave StortZ the sum mons witness took
him to Mrs. Wharton's house and gave
her his will in StortZ's presence. He
then filed complaint against his wife
for divorce, and gave Stortz the summons
to serve on her. Witness did not know
that the summons was served improperly
on his wife until informed of that fact by
Layson.
About the Hoxie divorce case, Whar-
ton swore that he did not know that
Charles Hoxie was not in the county
StOrtz told him that he knew HOxie and
he was given the summons to serve Ou
him. StortZ. IN the presence of j. Whar-
ton, defendants brother, made an affida-
Wit of service of summons in the Hoxie
case.
Wharton was defended by c. T. Jones,
L. c. Hart and w. Ii. LAWSON. Mr. Jones
in his argument denounced Stortz as
perjurer and said that if the summonses
had not been served Wharton did not
know it. He had been imposed upon by
StortZ. Wharton was innocent, and his
reputation for truth and veracity had not
been attacked in court, while mum Der
of witnesses had sworn that they would
not believe StortZ under oath.
+. G. Hart said he had known Wharton
for about eighteen years. and that he had
never heard the defendants reputation
called into question. He contended that
q jury could not find his client guilty un-
der the evidence adduced.
Deputy District Attorney J. c. Jones,
who conducted the prosecution, made no
argument.
In summing up, Justice Henry said it
was evident somebody had committed
perjury during the course of the examin-
alton. The evidence WAS conflicting, and
on that account he could not conscien-
tiUusly hold Wharton to answer. He or
dered the defendants discharge.
Wharton has yet to answer an accusa-
ton against him by Charles +. Russell
his brOther-in-law, who has ked the
Superior Court to disbar him for having
done that for which he was esterday ac-
quilted by Justice Henry.