Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-10-03
The CLDPTON DIVORCE CASE
Argument Al the clopton Divorce Case
Made Before the supreme Court
as fs5 q Today.
'WaaifeAppeals from q Judgment 81 the
District Court Granting. Decree
to- Husband.
Case Which Has Attracted Much Az
tention and Comment in Gotham
Circles. lis52

Insthe supreme court OF the statesto-
day was argued tthe appeal Of Josephine
sGlopton against her husband, William
81. Glopstosn. the latter wealthy law
yer and#slpronnilient club man OF New
York City, In the divorce case of glop-
tom Va C1opton which has been III the
scoll1'ts ofSthis district for several years
and which now comes before the gsu-
SSprsmle@scoErt or The appeal Of Mrs.
3Cloptont have set aside the decree
Of divorce granted to William {. Clop-
ton In 1895. The case is d sensational
one ID many particulars, involving
prominent persons in New York city,
and bringing into question again the
mmethodssofthe law firm OF Hoggat &
GaTuthers Of New York In obtaining
North Dakota divorces for their clients.
Some Of the#best legal talent ii the
state IS interested on both sides Of the
case. Judge Corliss, former justice of
the supreme court, arguing the case for
tie appellant, Mrs Clopton, and e <
Congressman Spalding Of Fargo APP
pearing . the respondent, ". C.
SGlopton, who obtained the original di-
:verce. s4. M B
The record in the case shows that
the parties were married in New York
city on December 16, 1896. It is FREE
quently alleged Ia the afadavits OF the
plaintiff in the original divorce case,
and q his relatives, that the wonan
IN the ase was JosephineBel who is
characterized as having been an adj
ventures, formerly the common law
wife of Henry Maillard, the big choc-
5o1ate1 andscandy manufactures from
whom she is alleged tohaVe received
an allowance 900 a year after
she left him. It was alleged that she
represented herself as a wealthy widow
and by herWiles won Clopton to.mar-
riage With her. The marriage is
agreed by both sides to have been an
unhappy one The afidaYits on both
sides Teekw with nastiness, and nu1ner
Gus infidelifies are complained Of.
sCIopton III the complaint filed for a di-
vorce before Judge Winchester, alleges
that his life with Mrs. Clopton was one
continual round of trouble, that she
was abusive and suspicious, cruel and
unkind, and af1idaYits OF similar pur-
port are to be found in the records.
Finally, according Ito the records in
the case it was agreed between the
parties that Clopton should come ont
10 North Dakota and obtain q divorce.
His attorneys were Hoggat & Caruth-
ers ct New York and If Voss OF
Mandan and the divorce proceedings
were begun In January, 1895. When
the IS came on for trial, James q.
Campbell OF Mandan appeared for the
defendant In the case. basing his APP
peaTance on letter from Howe &
HummeIl, the noted criminal lawyers
IN New York city, which letter was
claimed to have furnished authority
Campbell TO appear 8 them as at
torneys for Mrs. Clopton. Upon this
appearance the decree OF divorce was
granted on February 5
Mrs Glopton was served with the
complaint and papers IL the a but
is claimed by her attorneys thatthe
service was made upon her not until
Aveadays after hedecree o divorce
had been granted. Alter the granting
Of the decree she enteredtthte eas by,1
her attorney, p CsRice OF Mandan,,
end asked to nave the cas- reopened
and the decree Of divorce sci aside on
the ground that she had authorized
% appearance II the case. that none
had been properly made Tor her,and
FGsShAg