The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-06-05
PECULIAR DIVORCE CASE
ATTORNEYS on BOTH SIDES HIRED
By HE PLAINTIFF.
Special Judge Carson Continues the
Case for Further Hearing-HufY-
man Indictment Quashed.

An effort to secure a divorce by collision
was brought to light in Superior Court
Room l, yesterday, where Oliver II. Carson
is sitting as special judge in the absence
of Judge McMaster. The plaintiff in the
suit was Mary c. Evans and the defendant
Sanford A. Evans. Evans not in
court when the case was called but Attor-
ney William H Beerman was there for the
obvious purpose of representing him. Jo-
seph Morgan appeared for Mrs. Evans. In
the complaint and testimony Mrs. Evans
charged her husband with cruel treatment
and failure to provide AS a specific charge
she alleged that he once pointed q revolver
at her. threatening TO shoot, but that her
daughter interfered. She believed that, had
it not been for the intervention Of her
daughter she would have been shot.
Judge McMaster has rule that when the
defendants in divorce suits do not appear
the attorney representing the defendant
must have a power of attorney showing
that he is the authorized attorney TO de-
fend the case. Knowing this rule, Special
Judge Carson demanded the power of at
torney from Beerman. 1t explained
TO the court that a power of attorney had
been granted but that il had been mis-
placed. Relying upon this statement, Judge
Carson decided to hear the testimony in
the case, but grant no decree until it was
fled. IL was noticed that Beerman offered
but little defense in the cross-examnation
and questioned more particularly about the
property. Desiring to go further into the
matter, and in order that a decree might
be granted, Judge Carson continued the
until the afternoon and had Evans
subpoenaed to appear and testify.
Yesterday afternoon Evans was placed
on the witness stand and denied nearly all
the allegations made by his wife. Judge
Carson then asked him if he had not en-
pioyed Beerman 10 defend the case and he
replied in the negative. AT this both the
attorneys colored deeply and the judge
asked for an explanation. Beerman ad-
mitted that he had been employed by Mrs.
Evans through Morgan, to defend the case
and had been paid for his part IN the di-
vorce suit. The only explanation given by
Morgan was that the parties wanted to
avoid notoriety as much as possible. Evans
said he had consented to his wife getting
divorce on the ground of failure TO provide,
but did not know that she intended 10 file
such serious charges against him. Judge
Carson then continued the case for further
hearing.
Mrs Evans was indicted for perjury
about year ago on account or testimony
given in the trial of her clerk, VINO was
indicted for selling liquor without license
al her drug store at Meridian street ard
Fall creek. She testified that she was in
the store at the time witnesses said they
purchased liquor of her clerk. and these
witnesses said she was not. Judge Afford
expressed himself as believing that She
had perjured herself and at the next ses-
sion of the grand jury indictment was
returned against her. In the meantime the
clerk asked Judge Afford to be released on
his own recognizance for a few days UNI
tile he secured bondsmen, and he has never
been heard of since. Mrs. Evans also dis
appeared and did not return for several
months Nothing has as yet been done
with her case.