The record-union., 1895-08-13


! did not scrutiniZe the paper at all, and was
not sworn.
Wharton's statement is that he invited
StOrtZ TO the house 10 witness the delivery of
| the will to his wife, and to let him know
| where his wife lived that he could serve
| her with the summons, which service was
| made afterwards on the same day, as ne was
informed by StortZ and as beavers was sworn
| to by Stortz before hlm. This was on May
| l1th, the same day that the complaint was
| filed and the same day that the affidavit of
| service bears date In his testimony Wharton
| says that at this time he and his wife were on
| friendly terms and cOhabitated together that
| at times between that day and the gath of
| May he occupied the same room and bed
| with her, and that ii was understood between
| them that he was getting divorce to which
she consented. and that they frequently
| talked the matter over together.
| In his verified complainC filed on that day
| q copy of which he processes to have believed
| was served on his wife by Stortz he AYERS,
among other things, that for more Than one
| year prior to the commencement of the ac-
| tion his wife had willtully deserted and aban-
| doned him without cause. and that he had
not cohabitated with her during that time.
| That he and his wife were on friendly terms
during the tendency of the divorce suit
clearly appears from the evidence; but 1t is
| equally clear that she knew nothing of the
existence of the suit.
Upon this point the lips of the wife are
| closed, the law does not permit her to
| speak against her husband. but many facts in
| the case concur to show that she was from the
/ 1th of May until some days after the gath
| wholly unaware that her husband was main
tanning an action of divorce against her. The
will was of the adroit expedients to
insure her confidence.
Many of the facts also show that the object
| OF her husband in keeping up friendly rela-
| tiops with her at that time was To keep her in
| ignorance OF the pendency OF the suit. Hence
| also, the haste in attempting to get the di-
! vorce and the abortlve effort to that end be-
| lore Judge Hinkson. Although Wharton in
| his written answer TO the accusation does not
| deny knowledge of the ten day rule, he de-
clareS in his testimony that he did not know
! of il, and was surprised TO hear it announced
| by Judge Hinkson from the bench. Yet it is
| positively stated by Judge Johnson in his
! testimony that, at q time in May VIII ich
| must have been q day or two before calling
| the case for hearing before Judge HinKson,
| Wharton asked MIN ii he could hear di-
vorce case in q day or two, that the time to an
swer the summons had expired or was about
| him of the rule and that he would have to
| wait ten days after a default was entered be-
| fore his case could be tried
| The title OF the divorce case was not dis
! closed to Judge johnson, but it could have
| been no other than Wharton VS.. Whartoa, as
| he had no other divorce case pending at that
| time. There must have been an urgent mo-
| tive impeilins Wharton at this time, for as
/ soon as he had procured the entry OF the de-
| fault he solicited one OF the Deputy Clerks to
assign the case for hearing before Judge Hink-
son. and he was already on the stand on the
! upon an examination OF the papers, dis
covered the tact that the default had only
been entered one day before. This attempt
! on the part OF W haTton, independent OF its
| character as Il fraud upon the court goes tar
to eorroborate the testimony of Stortz and To
support the charge that W uarton knew that
Mrs. Wharton had not been served with the
summons