The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1895-02-09
.LANRENCE'S FLY METHODS.
APPEARS as ATTORNEYOF REC
ORD IN HIS OWN COURT.
WANTS HIS DIVORCE BUSINESS BACK.
Probate Judre Draws Petition, in His own
Handwriting, tii.s Case. fcr Divorce
Applicants, collects hft.ru'1's tees
and Court costs lu tu. aud iue
same Case. Huu Alt.-,thtr
0onducts G.eat Eu-.utss

The legislature should not fail to
gave the probate courts divorce Jurl--
diction winch can ba done by repeal
ing the clause which says divorces
can be granted bv the district court
and none Other-the part OF the dis
trict cour, procedure viii b tue sue
preme court uelu was a repeal OF thy
probate ac- ratified by congress. How
the legislature could repeal AN
having been given the force Of fcd-
cral law, we have never got through
our head-but the supreme cou'l got
il through it's head aud that was
enough. The probate courts can
handle divorces Just as well as thc
district courts and the legislature
should see that they are again given
jurisdiction OF course every district
clerk in the territory i- pulling to
have these fees made exclusively for
them. but law should ba crel'ed for
the people, not for district clerks.
The above from yesterday evenings
State Bladder indicates the extreme
reluctance with which Republican .
official gives up f)ur-p,y graft OF .
course, the article was iustEatei by
Republi an probate judge and as
deadener 10 the Democratic clerks II.
the erratic editor Of the Capital, SD
alert to take up the cry Of distress OF .
a friend iu need would take time %
run tareugh the files OF some Of the
divorce suits IL the probate court OF
Logan county and become acquainted
with some of the work and unprece-
dented practices OF said court in that
class of cases, he would probably be
less ha>ty in masking public outcry
and demand for the rc.investmcut of
divorce jurisdiction in probate court,
in general
In the district court are two cases
which illustrate the peculiar methods
OF one Colonel Lawrence, who used 10
run probate court divorce mill with
great profit until the supreme court
shut of his motive power. The two
cases are entitled Catherine l. New vs..
Charles L. New, No. l712 and Sue G.
Mcbeynold- vs. James Il McReyuolds,
No. 1926 The cases were pending iu
Judge Luwrence's court when the oe-
cision of the supreme court was rem
dered last fail aunulling the jari,di,-
tion OF the probate courts la divorce
cases They were at that time So
missed by him and flied in the dis
trict court
The original petitions as filed in the
probate court were simply transferred
to the district court, the fling work
Of the probate Judge being erased and
that of the district clerk being sub.
stituted. Both these cases are down
in the handwriting of $ $. Lawrence
who performed the double function OF
judge and attorney for p.aintF IN hi,
own court
Here is n new departure. The
practice of judge of court OF
record in cases OF that su-p.eou
nature and gravity that divorce ,a-,
should possess, appearing in the roi
of attorney for the pluiut 1T is trih
too rank for the endurance of .iv.I-
lied and enlightened people, Tbiub
ofiu
No wonder he demurs with a vocif-
erous roar at the loss OF such a snap
These are only two cases transferred
TO the district court when the method
was practiced. How many he has
thus thriftily managed before the SUI
preme court decision knocking him
out was rendered, and how many
double deals he got through in the
d - &