The San Francisco call., 1903-12-04
WHITFIELD STORY
TOLD BY PAPERS
Missing Documents Are
Returned to Judge
Trout.
Hanlon's Clerk Surrenders
Miss Boyere's Marriage
Contract.

| Ihe judgment roll in the case Of
George Whittell Jr. against Florence
Boyere, the suit which was so care
fully manipulated by the attorneys in
the case, particularly Charles Hanlon,
attorney for the plaintiff, that ali
knowledge of it was suppressed for
! days, is at last complete. The missing
papers, namely, the deposition of Miss
Boyere and her answer and cross COM
plant, which mysteriously disappeared
| from the County Clerks office the day
the case was tried, were returned late
| yesterday afternoon. The man who
brought them back was William G..
Cousins, Attorney Hanlon's man. Of all
! work, the man who repeatedly denied
having any knowledge of the case or
the papers connected with it the day
the fact that they were missing was
! discovered. He walked into Judge
Troutt's courtroom yesterday after
noon, deposited the papers with the
Judge. coolly informed his Honor that
they were the papers in the Whittell
case and walked out, vouchsafing no
explanation as to their whereabouts
since November 9, the day the action
was surreptitiously tried and adjudi-
Gated
STORY is REVEALED.
The character of the papers make
plain the attorneys reason for keeping
them out of sight. Had they been seen
it would have been impossible to keep
from the public the story of the con-
tract marriage of young Whittell. the
grandson of Nicholas Luning, the fam
Gus money-lender and beautiful Flor
ence Boyere, the divorced wife of Ho
mer Selby, the brother of kid" Nc
Coy. the pugilist. At present she is the
sister-in-law of Selby, for short time
after the erstwhile Mrs. Selby got her
divorce on the ground of infidelity he
married her pretty sister, Rosalie
Boyere.
The papers would also have revealed
that Attorney Hanlon's suit over "ad- |
verse claims (for such was the type
of action he brought at the request of
Whittens father to determine the va
lidity of the contract marriage) was a
suit in which not only was the contract
itself involved, but the property of
young Whittell and also his honor. For !
Miss Boyere in her cross complaint all
leges that Whitten betrayed her under |
promise of marriage. For this she
asked for 100000 damages, but waived
her right to monetary balm in the event |
that the evidence adduced would show
that she was the lawful wife of Whit |
tell.
CONTRACT IN EVIDENCE.
Miss Boyere's deposition showed that
the alleged marriage took place in New
York December 2, 1902, at the home of
Charles T. Henshall Previous to that /
time she held a written agreement of /
Whittell's to make her his wife, but I
this she surrendered to his father and /
it was destroyed. The contract mar
riage, however. she held, and it was /
made part of the evidence in the case.
1t reads as follows:
December 2 1902.
4 hereby agree to and have married George
Whittier Jr. tonight.
FLORENCE NJ. BOYERE.
I hereby agree to and have married Flor
ence NJ Boyere tonight
GEORGE WHITFIELD JR.
witnesses-Charles 7. Henshall, Grace E.
Henshail.
In her deposition she says that the
night the contract was executed she |
asked, in response to Whittells request
that she become his wife, that some
one to perform the ceremony be sent
for, but he suggested the contract. He
then begged her not to record it on the /
ground that he feared his father would
learn of his becoming a benedict. He
fairly cried for her to marry him, she
s~s. agreeing that in the event of her
b ming his bride he would renew the
contract every six months. She also
states that she was left penniless in
Chicago, and that before coming out /
here she was compelled to pawn her /
sealskin coat and her jewelry.