The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-11-13
DIVORCE FAKIRS INDICTED.
MRS. BYRDE g. HBRRICK CONFEsSEs
THAT II VAS ~ THE PLOT


Paid for Her Own Divorce By Tsstifyins 10
Othrr Gases Cans Suspected OF Issuios
spuriess Divorce Deorees-Got . Divorce
for Que Woman without Her knowledge.
The Grand Jury investigated the Maison
divorce mill yesterday and found indictments
against the three principal operators. Tho
persons against whom the Indictments were
ordered are W. W. Maison or ". ". Royal.
rs the head OF the gang SO metimes called him
self: Henry Zeimer. the lawyer who usually
appeared In the cases as the attorney for the
plaintiffs. and Frank Wilson. who. having served
three terms in the penitentiary for counter
feitin9. became a professional corespon dent.
As the indictments were not filed owing to tie
lateness OF the hour when they were returned.
the precise nature OF the crimes charged can
not be exactly stated. but THE SuN was In
formed on good authority that there were
three indictments against each OF the men.
In view OF the evidence which Is In poses
sion Of the District Attorneys Office. and from
what representatives OF that office have said.
the presumption Ia that indictments for con-
spiracy. perjury and subornsuon OF perjury
were found in each case.
After the Grand Jury had adjourned It was
announced that Mrs. Byrde @. herrick OF go
Bedford avenue. Brookl> Il, who was the plaintiff
IL NHS Ap IVAN w 49,
Hubbard. and who was at first thought TO
have been q victim OF Maison and Zeimer.
was not only aware Of the falsity Of the testi-
mony in her own case. but that previously
sho had been pla ying the role Of correspondent
In other cases. She admitted this in q state
mcnt to Assistant District Attorneys Cnger
and Gordon. and presumably she testified
70 thi. fact before the Grand Jury. for she was
one Of the witnesses called. Mary h. Thomp-
kins. who confessed TO having falsely testi-
fed 10 having been the correspondent In several
Of the cases. WAS also before the Grand jury
and repeated the story she had previously told.
No indictment Was found against either Of
these women. and the District Attorneys
Office will not say whether or not they will
be prosecuted at ell. The presumption is.
however. that they will receive immunity
in return for their evidence against the three
principals.
The herrick woman In her statement alleges
that she nrst became acquainted with Mhlson
more than a year ago when she went la see hiin
with reference to obtaining a divorce after
seeing his advertisement in the newspapers.
she and her husband dickered along with
him Tor some time and she finally concluded
TO get an absolute divorce. her husband. 80
lar as Is known. having 10 objection. Mason
offered TO get her tho divorce and furnish all
the evidence. but he wanted money. As she
lad no money 10 spare ior TINS purpose te
proposed that, she pay him by tesuiying Ia
other cases. 1t was a case OF Take II out
In trade" She was 10 be paid al the ratio OF
s. a day. She appeared in both the Gardner
and 1umbet,y cases and had agreed 10 appear
in still another when the conspiracy was hipped
by the arrest of Lenner and Nilsson when they
were about 70 sign the record In Mrs. herricA $
own GA AZ last I riday.
Her hrst splearanoe as a Correspondent
cSsr in ,h S,o SsIdne, G 8ss the Ssf Custom sS-S of Zee
mer and Maison. the witnesses were SUN.
moned to Slois9ns oIilco on the morning OF
the hearing, All the proofs, we're gone over
tagethpr. dates, names and places SluUltu l
thoroughly. until learned. and then all Went
e the referees Office Before The reis'te
kosciusko street. BROOKLYN. She ewore that
she had met Gardner, VINO Is an Undertaken
OF sept. II IN front Of the Morton House. ana
that they stayed there ne man and wife. All
this she now cOnieeses 70 have been false In
the 1umbetty case she. SAID she was Maria
bartlett of Si< Nest Twenty-iourth street. |
and swore that she had lived with Tumbet,y
rs his wife. The names 81 the parties to the
Mrs. Herrich Is Il pronounced blonde. and Is
scription OF her TALES with that OF tre lhonlp-
kins woman. There was stlll another woman
{o%ssS pSs 4 J spns.sn'fiih; lie Fl! ISon SpliGs'S Soh MnH
confessed To very much the same story as Airs.
herrick, except that she went into the sham
correspondent business deliberately in response
to Mai~nn's advertisement Tor q, detective; |
She got s. for each days work, She t.-Iiled !
deny having been used as Witnesses bv other
lawyer than Ieiiner and Maison. They, say |
Of bnsincss. but the District Attorneys Office
suspects, that there are other mills in Operation
and "A searching Investigation Is going on with a
view to clearing this matter up. |
rhe other witnesses before the Grand Jury
were cx-Justice Donohue.. Grosvenor l., Hub
bard. referee In the ~IlerriCk case, Charles NJ
Bcsttie, referee in the johnson case, A. A.
Joseph. referee in the Hopper case; F ID Shaw,
referee in the, Parsons case Amos g. Russell.
the stenographer whose slsrtcions concerning
Wllson started the Investigation. and Eugene
Saint Luce, the Janitor of The building at $50
broadway, where Nlaison and Ieimcr had their
There is a likelihood Of indictments for |
forgery being returned against Maison, and
in the bills returned Yesterday. In the case
before Referee Joseph a picture alleged 70 he
and identified n;tha, OF HOPPE. the defendant.
When Zeimer left the Office he forgot 10 take
the Photograph. with him II is still in Josean's
County Clerks office there i.. instead OF It. |
another picture Of ,anotI "r man.. and on II
are ,h,c forged Initials Of Layer Joseph.
Co.. in connection with divorces comes To
lisht every day They apnear TO have not
connivance Of rlaiutiN's. but they have insti-
tutei suits without even the consent or
snowled ssle d r!sin,tnr: ! I ssms of t this k sihqpd
she was Mrs. Carrie u. King. living in Bedford |
street. called at the County Clerks Office and
asserted that me decree Srditc1 ana entered |
OC'. - in her favor against Frederick u. King |
was never instituted BY he-. The decree was |
signed bv Justice BiSchoN on n report by Louis |
Hsu noinan aS rrfercn. |
II also appears probable that there are some |
persons who think they have divorces who |
have not oven So much as one Of the fraudu-
lcnilv obtained decreas on file In the County |
clerks Office. In two cases, one heard before !
Rcfc-e" pelehsrtv and another before Referee
TO reports werc signed and hence |
No decree vas granted. Ieimer never went
80 see the Referees tn inquire WHY tho reporis |
had no, hCep forwarded IN Tho cour, and ~. |