Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1900-11-21
FALLEN FROM GRACE.
The Rev. Alouzo Rich Is Convicted
Of Perjury.
HB WAS ADDICTED TO MATRINONY
By Admitting a Mock Marriage Cero
mOny, He Got Into Trouble With the
GOVernment-The story of His
Trial and Conviction

mOny, He Got Into Trouble With the
GOVernment-The Story Of His
Trial and Cow; ction.
Kansas City, Mo-, November TO-
Tha Rev. Alonzo Rich, revival
preacher of the Christian Shurch, was
found guilty of perjury by a jury in
che United States district court late
yesterday afternoon. He has not yet
been sentenced. The trial brought
out some peculiar and astonishing
ka&ngs in the minister's life
The Rev. Mr.. Rich, according to his
own statement, has been married four
dimes, and every one of his wives is
diving. He is past 60 years old, long
Lean, angular man, with cadaverous
face and Struggling beard. He got
into trouble with the government in
ttds way: Gn 1891 he married Mrs.
Mary E. Morgan, widow of veteran
OF the Civil war. She drew pension
a0 . widow, but when she was mar
med the pension stopped. Aften
time the Rev. Mr.. Rich and his wife
quarreled, and she sued for and OBJ
tahned a divorce, alleging cruelty. At
ter her divorce Mrs. Morgan made ap-
padcation to be reinstated on the pen
eion rolls. She learned that she was
not entitled to a pension, even though
0he had been divorced from her second
husband. Here, for some ineXpGcable
reason, the Rev. Alon2o Rich, the man
from whom she WAS divorced, the man
H. 4 <~Ra \
other crimes, came to her aid with q
romarkable statement.
He made affidavit to the pension
examiner, to the horror of Mrs. Nor
gan, that his marriage with her was
not legal, that she had never really
been married to him ait all, that the
ceremony was only q mockery, be-
Oause when it was performed he was
already the husband OF a woman
named Jane Parker, whom he had
married in Michigan. The statement
was q surprise and a shock to Mrs.
Morgan, who knew nothing of the Rev.
Mr.. Rdch's former Life. The minister
excused himself by saying that he had
Thought Jane Parker dead when he
married Mrs. Morgan, but that after
hlB marriage he learned that she was
In Chicago.
from q minister, the agitation and
horror of his divorced wife, and sever.
al smaller incidents that occurred
when the Rev. Mr.. Rich made his dis
closure, made the pension examiners
suspicious. Mr. Sterne, one of tha
examiners, went 10 look up the history
- An.a no-1>or yho ha r,,1y
liter said, had been his wife. He went
70 the little town in Michigan wherN
the marriage, the minister said, had
taken place. but he could find no re.
cords of any such marriage. He
found, however, that a woman named
Jane Parker had lived there, but that
went ITO Chicago and tried to find the
house where Jane Parker had died.
Instead of finding her dead, he found
her RlEve, living with her son.
He found she had never married the
Rev. Alonzo Rich, who was then con.
knew him she was married to James
fed and slandered her. He found
many other facts not to the credit Of
the Rev. Alonzo Rich.
and reported what he had found. The
Rev. Alonzo ich, who was then con.
Quoting revival services in Kansas,
was indicted and arrested. He had
no money to hire an attorney, so the
court appointed Ed C. Wright to de.
fend him.
The sensational feature of the trial
occurred when Major Warner called
- q witness on the stand the same
Jane Parker whom the Rev. Alonzo
Rich had slandered. She testified
strongly against the Rev. Mr.. Rich.
She sadd he had never been her hus-
band; that she had very little to do
with him; that he was an evil man
and had led an evil life while preach
ing the Gospel Ito others. All the
while the Rev. Mr.. Rich squirmed
about In his chair and gnawed his
nails and sneered.
When the minister was called to the
0oand In his own defense he was tart
and impudent in his answers. This
% aggravated Major Warner that he
roared, Remember, Mr.. Rich, that
you cannot play the minister and the
witness at the same time!"
The minister begged his pardon and
became very meek.
Perhaps the most peculiar thing
about the case was chat absolutely no
motive was proved for the minister's
perjury. He was ait enmity with Mrs.
Morgan. Why then. did he perjure
himself for her? He knew the con-
sequence II he were detected. Why
dad he place himself in danger for q
woman who had obtained a divorce
from him by charging him with gross
indignities? The government made
no attempt even to guess at the min