Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-11-16
PLACES b|ERER
IN A BAD LIGHT.
Sensational Motion Filed in Con-
nection With Recent Div.
0rCe Case.
MAKES SERIOUS CHARGES.
Matter Brought Into Court by Nephew
OF Deceased Mrs, Biercr--
Property Involved.

y ueCldedlS seNSaupual nlotloH was
fled IN the district court yesterday Ia
connection with the decree OF divorce
granted Eyerard Blerer Jr., a promi'
ncnt attorney OF this city. from May
L. Bierer, which was rendered by Judge
Morse on June q, 1905, The former
Mrs. Bierer died at Panguitch, Utah,
on July 81 1905, ana her nephew, T.
jerks Shaifer Of Pennsylvania, filed
the motion I'm the case In which he asks
that the decree OF the divorce be set
aside 80 far as II affects the property
rights of Mrs, Bierer lie charges
that the divorce was obtained by false
aud fraudulent testimony on the part
OF Mr Berer
WIFE HAD PROPERTY.
Among other things he alleges that
when Mr.. Bierer morried his former
wife she had property Of the value Of
$4,000, which he has disposed Of and
that Immediately after the decree was
rendered he compelled her to leave the
cityWithout sufficient clothing or money,
She went 20 papguitCh, where she par
TALLY supported herself ANA was par
TALLY supported by friends up TO the
time OF her death. Mr.. Blerer married
his former wife at PuuXsutavney, Pa,
On March "A, 1895. His present wife
was Miss Roxie Cummings who had
been employed in his office as steno-
grapher II is alleged In the motion
filed by Mr.. Shaffer that Mrs Berer
accepted service Of the summons In tie
case and waived her appearance
through fear and coercion on the part
OF her husband. The charges OF fraud
on the part of Attorney Bierer are set
forth IN the motion as follows;
VICTIM OF MORPHINE,
THAT the said plaintiff testified that
at the lime he married the said de-
PENDANT that she was addicted to the
morphine habit, and that said fact was
then unknown 10 him, when In truth
and IN fact, although the said defendant
was at that time addicted 10 the NOR
mime habit, said fact was well known
to said plaintiff at the time of his mar
rlage to said defendant and prior there
to.
THAT the said plaintiff testified
at said trial that the said defendant
Mary l.. Bierer, was at the time OF
the flling OF the complaint in said ac-
ton ana at the time Of said trial adj
dicted 10 the morphine habit when in
truth the said defendant, Mary l.. Bier
er. was not at that time and had not
been for a period Of more than l6
months addicted to said habit or to the
use Of said or any drug In any form or
manner whatsoever, and that said fact
was well known TO the plaintiff, EV-
erard BIerer, Jr., at the time he gave
his testimony at said trial
WANTED TO MARRY.
THAT the application Of the said Ev-
erard Blerer. Jr, for a divorce in said
action was not made In good faith, or
for the purpose OF relieving himself
from the obligation of marriage
which had become nsupportable, but
was made because Of contemplated mar.
rIage with another woman, and which
marriage contract he desired to con-
summate, and did shortly thereafter full
I'LL
That at the trial Of said cause the
plaintiff, Everard Bierer, Jr., was asked
by the court as 70 what provision had
been made for the support and main
tenance of the defendant, Mary L.
Bierer, whereupon the said plaintiff
falsely testified that ample provision
had been made for her support, which
statement was untrue, and that the
plaintiff then and there well knew.
THAT at the time of the marriage Of
the said plaintiff and defendant the
said defendant Mary l., Berer, was
possessed Of property and money Of the
value approximately OF $4,000 together
with a large amount Of jewelry, silver
ware and family heirlooms, all Of which
came inJo the possession Of said plain
tiff That during the time Of the ex-
lstenco Of said marriage the plaintiff
has earned large sums Of money, and
the money and property Of the said de-
PENDANT was not used ana was not nee
essary for the support of the family,
and that the same is now in the possess
sion Of the said plaintiff.
SENT TO PANGUITCH
That Immediately after the entry OF
the said decree the said plaintiff COM
PEELED the said defendant % remove
from Salt Lake city, Utah, and COM
PEELED her 10 leave said city with In
sufficient clothing and with less than
$50 in money, and that said defendant
did so leave the city at the time she was
H. which fact was well known to the
plaintiff. That the said defendant,
Mary l.. Bierer. went TO Panguitch, In
the state OF Utah ana while there thL
said plaintiff made no provision what
ever FOR her support and she was sup
ported partially by her own exertions
and partially by the charity OF friends.
and that on or about the BIS, day OF
July, A. D. 1905, at pauguItch, Utah.
she died and was buried and that the
expenses Of her burial were paid by a
friend and that the plaintiff has failed,
neglected and refused 10 pay he same
although requested so "a do
THAT on or about the 30th day Of
August A, d. 1905. at Pennington, in