Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-11-21
MRS, AARTJE WINS
HER DIVORCE CASE
Husbands Petition Thrown
Out of Court,
EVIDENCE ALL reviewed
Judge Glasses the Testimony as Of
Doubtful Value.
PLACES ALL COSTS ON HARTJE
Finds Nothing in the Alleged New
Evidence to Change the De-
i cision Below.
EVIDENCE ALL reviewed
Judge Glasses the Testimony as Of
Doubtful Value.
PLACES ALL COSTS ON HARTJE

PHILADELPHIA, November 21.-Mrs.
Mary Scott Hartje. who was sued~f for
divorce by her husband. F. Augustus
Hartje, the Pittsburg millionaire. won
complete victory in the Pennsylvania su-
perior court here today, when that tri-
bunal affirmed in it's entirety the decision
Of the Allegheny county court. which re-
fused to grant Hartje a divorce. The pc
titions filed by Hartje's attorneys asking
the superior court to reopen the case on
the ground of newly discovered evidence
were denied. The petitions to reopen the
case were based on letters alleged to have
been written by Mrs. Hartje and Thomas
Nadine, the family coachman. who was
named as a correspondent by Hartte.
The decision, which was written by
Judge Beaver and concurred in by the
other six members Of the court, says:
I'VE have given careful consideration
to the evidence in this case. It is of
two kinds-the evidence Of servants
employed and Of friends Of the family.
With the exception of single witness.
this testimony is not only not convinc-
ing, but is scarcely sufflelent to arouse
even a suspicion Of improper relation
between the respondent and the CORE
spondent. The excepted witness is
Susie Wagner. She was evidently
strongly prejudiced witness. She was
brought from Germany by Hartte, and
was met on her arrival in New York by
him and his counsel. Her testimony,
to say the least. must be received not
only with care but with suspicion and
such founded doubt as to preclude a
conclusion shch az we are asked to
deduce from It,"
Petition Dismissed.
In discussing the letters which have
figured in the case the decision dis
misses all but one with scant consid-
Grafton, and in discussing the one re-
tanned the decision says:
IF the testimony of those who are
familiar with the handwriting OF Mrs.
Hartje has any value it would seem as
if the testimony of the experts. should
be taken as of such corroborative forces
as to make the genuineness Of this letter
very doubtful. We reach the conclusion
that the allegations of the libelant are not
sustained by evidence. The trial Judge
was not satisfied with the evidence, and
we are not satisfied. We agree with the
conclusions reached by the trial judge in
many of the reasons stated by him in
dismissing the suit for divorce
AFTER this case was appealed a petit
tion was presented on behalf of the libel
ant praying this court to reopen the case
on the ground of new discovered evidence.
The petition was accompanied by the afi-
davit of the Hbelant, but 1t Is not sup
ported by any aff1davits of witnesses as to
what their testimony would be or as to
the manner in which the alleged docu-
mentary evidence was procured.
Placing the Costs.
"As to the alleged facts to be proved by
the correspondent his testimony, cor
rectly represented In the petition, must
necessarily start with declaration which
would utterly discredit him as witness
and would lead only to the eliminating of
his testimony already taken, which. If
done, would not, in our opinion, material
ly change the general aspect of the case
and would not lead to any different result.
We have considered the aff1davits of the
mother and sister of the alleged core
spondent filed in the petition, but can
find nothing in it for them which leads us
to change our conclusion or warrants us
In granting the prayer of the petitioner.
The prayers of the several petitions for
suspending the case are denied
The costs of the proceedings are placed
on Hartje.