The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-01-05
Revived by Lawyers Get
ting Tangled Up
OVER THE c. H. YOUNG DIVORCE
CONSTABLE DISCOVERS LUTGE'S
MISSING MONEY
Merely the Facts Outlined Before Be-
ing Developed in the Savage
Murder Trial

It Is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to
say that according to the ethics Of the
legal profession It is not considered quite
the correct thing for an attorney to sell
out his client in court.
1t Is true, however, that the ethics of
professional life at the Los Angeles bar
have been rather under cloud recently.
and reflections have been cast in open
court without the Bsr associations taxi
ing any action
Now another story has developed that,
il the allegations made prove correct,
will be--well, will be quite interesting.
In the fall Of last year the divorce suit
of Charles H. Young against Lulu Young
came to trial in Judge Van Dykes de-
partment of the superior court. The tes-
tlfnony was quite racy, but what gave
interest to the case was the fact that the
plaintiff was in the last stages of con-
sumption, and appeared in court while
In a dying condition. He had followed
the business of a printer and had recent
ly inherited fourteenth interest in the
estate Of Joseph B. McCullagh, the fam
Gus st. Louis editor. 1t was on account
Of this inheritance that the divorce con-
test was so keenly urged, for the Nc
Cullagh estate was inventoried at $780,
427.46.
After prolonged hearing on Septem-
Der 4, 1897, Judge Van Dyke made oral
announcement that the court found for
the plaintiff and ordered that findings
~ Zoe ic
could be done Young died, and though
his counsel, Messrs. Marble & Phibbs.
commended that the divorce had been
granted to the deceased, Young, when
the verbal decision was rendered and
spread upon the court minutes, Mrs.
Houng's counsel-Messrs. Pierce &
Gould-maintained with equal earnest
ness that, findings not having been sign
ed, death had interposed without any
decree Of court having been properly
made or perfected. The matter was ar
gued in court and counsel on either side
filed briefs. How the matter might have
ended is moot point, but certain 1t is
that upon stipulation Of opposing coun-
sci Judge Van Dyke signed the neces-
sary documents, and the verbal decree
rendered before Young's death was
made perfect in law after he was laid
away in the grave.
But new phase Is now given to the
affair by a stack of affldavits filed by
Mrs. Lulu Young, in which she seeks to
show by her own statement, as we'll as
by the statements Of others, that the
findings and decree were signed without
her knowledge and consent. and that her
er% wit ha- In
for the sake of a sum of money agreed
upon in the stipulation referred to and
awarded to them as counsel fees.
Mrs. Young claims that before the
court gave verbal decision her law
yers had advised her to take an appeal
to the supreme court. Her husband
was then dying and she stated that
rather than torture him by prolonging
the litigation she preferred that he
should have the divorce. When, how
ever, her husband died the matter was
changed and she never consented to a
decree being entered against her.
When her husband died Mrs. Young
claims that General Pierce visited her
and said the case was ended and that
Judge Van Dyke said "he couldn't d.
vorce a dead man." Her attorney also
explained to her that she could claim
her rights in the estate of her husband,
and both he and VIII D. Gould stated
that II Messrs. Marble and Phibbs tried
to get the divorce papers signed they
would oppose it.
Having thus been told that the divorce
matter had been ended by death Mrs.
Young employed the law firm of Winder
e. Davis To take the conduct of her a f.
fairs in the matter of her husbands
estate. That action on her part it was
that really precipitated the trouble that
now threatens.
Judge Winder accompanied Mrs
Young to the office of General Pierce to
make arrangements for substitution of
attorneys, and took the opportunity to
protest against the decree's being al
lowed to stand under which the rights
of Mrs Young were lost and $500 al
lowed to accrue to Attorney Pierce and
Gould. General Pierce is quoted as hav-
ing exclaimed: DO you think 1 will
consent to a substitution of attorneys
unless 1 am paid?"
Judge Winder reminded him that he
had in his possession a contract made
with Mrs. Young by virtue of which he
and Mr. Gould had undertaken to defend
her interests in the divorce suit, and all
other suits that might arise, for half
interest in all sums or properties that
might be awarded to her by suit, COM
promise or otherwise and that under if
they were entitled to nothing at all.
About the time that she retained the
new firm of legal advisors, too, Mrs.