Evening journal., 1900-11-13
Another Fraudulent Divorce
Case Is UnearthOd
s-rr
INVESTIGATING DIVORCE MILL
Among Those Examined Was StenOg-
rapher Who Gave Tip Concerning
Operation Of The Mill

New York, Nov 13.-The grand
jury yesterday afternoon devoted it's
session to the investigation of the al
legged divorce mill operated by w.
Waldo Maizon, at 239 Broadway.
Among the witnesses present were ox-
Judge Donohue, a referee in one of
the cases; Amos c. Russell, the stem
ographer, OF l20 Broadway, who gave
the tip concerning the operation of the
divorce mill: Grosvenor S. Hubbard,
OF 30 Wall street, who was referee
when the Herrick case was heard
Abraham A. Joseph. of 302 Broadway.
another referee: Mary IL. rompkins,
an alleged professional witness; Mrs.
Byrde G.. Herrick. of Brooklyn; Charles
M. Beattie, a referee: Frank ID. Shaw,
o referee, and Eugene Saint Luce, the
janitor in the building where MaizOn
and leimcr had their Offices.
Mrs. Herrick appeared as the prin-
cipal witness. Assistant District At
torney Unger said that she appeared
In number of cases. llesaid that tho
woman said she met zeimerand Maizon
through an advertisement. They
agreed TO get her q divorce and got
her husband TO pay them $3.50 on the
promise that she would not sue for
allmony. The woman said that she
had no money to pay Zeimer and
Maison, and they agreed To allow her
to work out her bill at the rate of S5
per day. She testified that she ap-
peared as n witness in several cases.
She said she went TO Zeimer's Office
and would rehearse the evidence and
then testify Mrs. Horriclz said she did
not meet the Tompl1ins woman until
two weeks ago.
Assistant District Attorney Unger
said that the Tompkins woman was
employed by zeimer and Maison as a
detective and then became witness
at the suggestion of zelmer, who said
It would be more profitable.
Il was learned that indictments had
been found against Maison, zeimer
and Wilson
Another fraudulent divorce case was
brought to light in the supreme court
| yesterday. Although a decree in her
favor appears upon the records in the
/ county clerks office, Mrs. Carrie ID.
King asserts that she never instituted
such proceedings and knows abso-
lutely nothing about the case. except
| that some time ago she signed what
] NHN hAAANNNN HA HNA tANAAH Ef-NNtN A- N-AN
/ Office OF Attorney Maison
Mrs. Kings story Of the matter is
that she had trouble with her husband
couple of years ago and they sepa-
rated He agreed to pay her Sc a week
while they were living apart. Some
time last July. she says. her husband
came TO her and asked her to 60 and
see lawyer He told her that the
attorney would draw up papers for her
10 sign which would protect her in the
matter Of getting alimony.
Mrs. King says that the name Of the
lawyer was Maison. When she got to
Maisons Office he told her that he had
evidence against her husband on which
she could get a decree of absolute di-
vorce. He said that he had seen King
at a hotel with another woman.
Mrs King asserts that she told
Maizon that she did not want di-
vorce from her husband Before she
left the office Maiz0n, she said, in
duced her TO sign q paper, which she
believed to Doe q separation agreement
between herself and her husband
whereby he was to pay her weekly ali
mony.
A careful investigation Of the pa
pers show that the paper which Mrs
King signed was an affidavit in which
she is made to apply for a divorce.