New-York tribune., 1903-04-19
WOMAN SUED W. A. CLARK
Demanded Damages for Alleged
Breach of Promise of Marriaee.

That Senator Clark. os Montana. was ths ss
sendant in suit for Sf51.Ga0 damages for auso.
breach Of promise Of marriage came to light wiz,
Justice Davis yesterday granted an order authorfz
ing the lawyers for Mary McNeIlls the on, = 4
the suit. compel der former attorney To 6elivs~
to her ali the papers IN the suit so that she nav
apply for new trial The motion was not oo-
lDsed.
A previous application. on March 8. vas accom-
panied oy petition OF Mary MeNellis. In when
size said that she lived at No Il West Ninsteenra-
ST. Manhattan. The petition said Substantially In
part:
stjlIman F. Kneeand consented to become the
counsel OF your peltIoner ana thereupon Jook sSIs
and exclusive charge Of action. and your Det-
toner from JmS 70 tfls aelise 20 nlitl oLlsaat
letters from Hllllam = ClaEN hasNis fslelsl-s 20
the action. photographs ana cards. 70 be Used as
exag5{s foas9 edoe oe and md for . purpose Of aS gSoo
that William A. Clark seduced your DsLuoIer
That an answer was InJsrposed denying the
allegations Of the complaint. and IN or ABOUT t1e
month Of February, lyCz oroer was rnads herein
~ ~ 5ebsif OF vce~ Ee-f5ioner y. conssnuns refer
i rlne t6e issues 70 James l. bishop to determine
same and your petitioner alleges that tae eonss1r
OF StiIran +. Kneeland 70 Jns SAID I-Ierence Vas
procured By William A. Clark for deprlvtng your
petitIoner Of her rlght 20 trlaI oy J1fs. aAd 70
Tba+ several hearings were had and your peti-
1lqLe Lesnd ;nfarfaed her some time IL April. 49,
that the referee had decided the case against nsr,
parrements we're pending between HIN and Sen
ator Clark 20 interest tne senator IA LNe k@tSh9se
q LI seiiIS I'D part interest and that your peri-
hIiee.a-la, & -csiea s1JostantiaI sum out OF TIE
olOva isioy, 0 money received BY SIr. Kneeand Or
account OF his dealings with Senator ClerK, y ae
T,IrcTased an interest in the said mine through the
ia Knee1snd That your petitioner repeatedly ap-
piled to Kneeland to return 70 neI ne ollst1al s
ters photographs caros ana r. s. 80 So
were used and TO be used as exHIol.s u 1sF as.
and also for copy OF tLe stsilV5l if5 a--ea.-5
which is IN the possession OF lls sa-- .Sa.-L. a..
but he refused 70 deliver the sane or @ny S SaEt
Ne Believed that they had been delivered 70 tae
attorneys for Senator Clark " 40 were erSle5a %
and that your petitioner could not na's % LHsa or
any Of them. and taat " Tag o7 s1-f5e5res ar
exhibits in the case should oe sLPgI = a. g.
that neither such evidence nor sucn exnISls SHO14
0e yoTT petitioner was also informed By said Knee
land that it had been agreed oet%sen hlia 80 go go
aror Clark that no appeal should oe taHsn ron from
the judgment entered upon Pm IhS e 1IasT rom tbs
said judgment entered upon the SAID report na-
long since expired
senator Clark at his ohice. 40. IS wall-st. said
yesterday
deny positively this T9ma2s @ s SOY 6 the SfS &s s
stan before Referee Bishop There IS aosoluIe!y 20
truth in her allegations that promised % marty
ner q. any ny qaTa IN 1886 at the Chcago convel-
ton I was introduced to her by Elliot DanIoFIn
believe That am not - aos9.5sTy ot3eT prominent po!-
it was mot not 1rdduSed he u %s7 e to er She represented
herself then as newspaper correSs -
GlGo Ge TO buy books had use for the books and and
returned them to her saw her only tAEee OF 1o1'
In 1886 began to receive letters rom LaWyers
mail i50S the amount demanded gradually essen
i,Ig 7 would not submit to the derlards arc |
In ra+ 40 so now I am not afraid o. pu0uclIy
and shah not try TO evade IT.
Senator Clark then showed copy OF tne oeciS'O-'
of the referee. The decision in part read:
The defendant Clark did not on OCTOBER r. 80
or at any other time promise to marry I3e p'zll
r 5f1 the defendant By means OF promises S0o1ce
or debauch her
The referee dismissed the suit as without merit