New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-01
UNANYLA WIERSNE1HOD
CHARGES AGAINST JAMES J. WALSH. WHO
SAYS He Is \ CONGRESSMAN.
NE X ONE OF DADDY DIVERS I!EN'liMEN' MD
JoHN MURRAY MITCHELL Is CoNrESriN'
HIS POLITICAL. CLAIM MRS. WILSON
SIZES HIM AND ALLEGES MISAr-


HIS POLITICAL. CLAIM MRS. WILSON
SUES HIM AND ALLEGES MIsAr-
PRopRIATIoN or MONEY
James J. Walsh. lawyer. is defendant IN sui'
brought against him in the city Court by fornf"
client Mrs Annie " Wilson, to recover $50 which
she alleges Is wrongfuy retained by him. Walsh
js a son Of cX-Cou8;y Clerk Walsh and nephew OF
Thomas p. Walsh eX-Warden OF the Tombs. He
asserts ne was elected Congressman OF the VIIIth
Congress District CPaGdy' DIVERS baiwick). on
the Tammany ticket. by small majority over his
opponent. John Murray Mitchell. who Is contesting
mis- claim.
According TO Mrs Wilson's complaint. her hus-
band John Wilson. a cooper to whom she was
married on June 6 1873 when she was in her teens
deserted her year later and wen; to live with
another woman She says she went to Wash, who
agreed 10 procure divorce for her in twenty days
for SEQ including al! expenses which she pad MN
Walsh, she says. failed TO carry out his promise
Then she asked him to compel her husband to con-
tribute to her support. Wash. she alleges, told
her that If she would sign agreement not to sue
for counsel zee or almony he would induce her
husband to pay her 81 80 a week till divorce could
be procured. She did SO. and Walsh compelled her
husband by order OF court pay the specified sum
After time. however. she says. Walsh Kept TINS
money due her from her husband.
As Walsh would do no more for her. Mrs Wilson
visited her husband. who tod her that he had paid
Walsh retainer az $50 TO act counsel for him in
her suit for divorce. She then employed othcr
counsel who obtained from her husband an affidavit
setting forth that he had paid Walsh s. % for her
account each and every week during the year lNl
and that he had paid Walsh So as retainer Mrs
Wilson further alleges that her husband has as
signed his claim for $50 against Walsh 70 her; that
she does not believe that Walsh ever began any
suit for divorce for her. and that Wash has not
paid her any part OF the money due her
Mr. Walsh. who seen at his home. ~, y
CITY Hall Place By a Tribune reporter, y'sIerdly
said: 1t is false that have been guilty ct Unfair
dealing on the same DAY That | WAS retained 10y
Mrs. Wilson began the action. and causeI sam
mons and complaint 20 be duly served uToa n'r
husband. The divorce would nave been grant" ny
DEF lult as Wilson put in ans wer. but MIS-.
Wilson ins trnctcd me discontinue tHc suit WAlcl
| did | received g 30 week for eiGht or nine
months from Wilson. and paid ii all - Mrs. WI
son whose receipts arc now III TIE nard+ oi III!
counsel Daniel j. Cushman. No. $50 'rod IWaN.
That received $50. even single doIaH, or any
sum Of money. whatever from Wilson: AZ any tmc
is absolutely and wholly false. Inc lHeEdtIon ina;
! agreed to get a divorce Tor Mrs. Wilson in iWentA
DAYS or any other specified time. would be laughed
AZ by any lawyer as ridiculous. ! believe Fave
nswered all essential allegations. but " the cas-
ever comes to trial which doubt. my defence VIII
be complete and cannot fail TO result in my entire
eXOnerat