Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1900-11-15
FALLEN FROM GRACE.
The Rev. Aloszo Rich Is Convicted
OF Perjury.
ne WAS ADDICTED TO MATRIMONY.
Dy Admitting u Mock Marriage Core
mOny, lilo Got Into Trouble with the
GoVornInent-The Story Of His
TrInI aud Conviction.


yesterday afternoon. lie has not yet
been sentenced, The trial brought
oUt some peculiar and astonishing
things IN the minister's life.
The Rev, Mr. Rich, according to HIS
own statement, has been married -four
times, and every one Of his wives Is
living. lie is past 60 years old, long
lean, angular man, with cadNyerous
face aud u Struggling beard. lie got
into trouble with the government In
this way; In 1891 he married Mrs.
Mary T., Morgan, widow Of veteran
Of the Civil war, She drew Il pension
as u 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
talned divorce, alleging cruelty. Az
ter her divorce Mrs. Morgan made ap.
plication to be reinetated on the pen
sion rolls. She learned that she was
not entitled to pension, even though
she had been divorced from her second
husband. Here, for some meNplicable
reason, the Rev. AlonZo Rich, The man
from whom she was divorced, the man
whom she had accused of cruelty and
other crimes, came to her aid with a
remarkable statement,
He made affidavit to the pension
examiner, to the horror of Mrs. Nor.
gan, that his marriage with her was
not legal, Ghat she had never really
been married to him at all, that the
ceremony was only n mockery, be-.
cause when it was performed he was
nlready the husband or a woman
named Jane Parker, whom he had
married in Michigan. The statement
was surprise and q shock to Mrs.
Morgan, who knew nothing OF the Rev.
Mr.. Rich's former life. The minister
excused himself by saying that he had
Thought Jane Parker dead whom he
married Mrs, Morgan, but that after
his marriage he learned that she was
still alive, but that latter she had died
in Chicago.
These strange statements coming
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 the
examiners, went to look up the history
of the dead Jane Parker who, the min
lister said, had been his wife. He went
to the little town in Michigan where
the marriage, thc minister said, had
taken place. but he could find no re.
cords Of any such marriage. He
found, however, that Il woman named
Jane Parker had lived there, but that
she had moyed to Chicago, Mr.. Sterne
went TO Chicago and tried to find the
house where Jane Parker had died.
Instead of finding her dead, he found
her alive, living with her son.
He found she had never married the
Rev. Alon2o Rich, who was then con.
knew him she WAS married to james
CNnnady; that the minister had vid-
fled and slundercd her. He found
many ether facts not TO the credit OF
the Rev. Alonzo Rich.
Mr.. Sterne returned to Kansas City
and reported what he had found. The
Rev. Alon2o 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.
fcnd him,
The sensational feature Of The trial
occurred when Major Warner called
as e, witness on the stand the same
Jane Parker whom the Rev. Alon2o
Rich had slandered. She testified
strongly against the Rev. Mr.. Rich.
She said he had never been her huS-
band; THAT she had very little 10 do
with him, that he was an evil man
and had led an evil FIFE while preach
ing the Gospel ITO others. All the
while the Rev. Mr.. Rich squirmed
about in his chair and gnawcd his
Nails and sneered.
When the minister was called to the
stand in his own defense he was tart
and impudenE in his answers. This
30 aggravated Major warner mat lie
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 that absolutely no
motive was proved for the minister's
perjury. He was at cnmity with Mrs.
Morgan, Why then, did he pcrjure
himself for her? He knew the con.
sequence If he were detected. Why
did he place himself in danger for a
woman who had obtained a divorce
from him by charging him with gross
indignitcs? The government made
no attempt even to guess at the min
iser's motive.