Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-01-30

Inc petition states the facts IN legal
parlance substantially as stated by 4
the plaintiff upon the witness stand,
except upon the record 1t does not
appear that there was any collision
between counsel in the divorce case
nor that there was any actual fraud
on their part; but the record does
show. | think, actual fraud on the part
of the defendant in procuring said dt-
vorce and such irregularities in said |
proceeding as to justify the allegation
of constructive fraud, by which
men, acts which though not inten- |
tionally wrong on the part of those
committing them, resulted in gross in |
Attorneys Cleared.
The attorneys in a case are not re-
sponsible for the truth or falsity Of
the facts stated in a pleading so long
as the pleading states only such facts
in substance as the client claims to be
true, and an attorney cannot be rea-
sonably CHARGED with improper con-
duct if he states the facts In the
Mrs. Fletcher did not expressly use
the terms fraud and collision, the
charges made bv her and the gross in
Justice which she claimed to have sus-
tanned would, If unexplained. readily
lead to the conclusion that such was
the result of actual fraud. After hear
ing the proof it has been made clear to
my mind Just how such an unfortu-
nate result was reached and such ex-
PLANTATION exonerates all parties and
attorneys from any fraud or intention
al wrong in the matter except the de-
PENDANT alone. Intervenors do not
claim that attorneys in the case
are guilty of fraud, but clai INTO have
simply acted as their duty required as
PLAINTIFFS attorneys in the commence
ment of this case l think the record
sustains them In that contention They
| contend that the decree in the divorce
action at the time said petition was
fled in this case ought to have been
| set aside for want of jurisdiction and
for irregularities in procuring the
same and they say that having shown
said fact they are entitled to rea-
! sonable attorneys fee for their SER
vices in this case.
! Ny conclusion is that intervenors
have established their said contention
1t must be kept in mind that this
proceeding is direct attack upon the
divorce proceedings and although
counsel for the defendant has assum-
ed that the divorce decree would be
treated as valid the court can not take
that for granted; that is the pivotal
question in the case. ! am convinced
that the decree Of divorce ought to be
set aside for the reason that the court
/ did not have jurisdiction to grant the
same, and because the same is gross
ly inequitable and against public pol
icy.
Reared Children.
After living with plaintiff many
years during all of which time she had
been a faithful mother to his eleven
vorce proceedings on her all at once;
she had nothing against him and
wanted to continue as his wife. HIS
determination to get divorce greatly
excited and confused her; he knew
that he had an al-oontrollng infu-
enoe over her and that she was not
disposed to oppose him. Having de-
termined upon a divorce he called in
his attorney without any such break
; between him and his wife as to cause
her to seek counsel elsewhere. He took
his lawyer to her home and there had
him draw an agreement purporttng to
settle their property rights, which was
signed by both Of them. although it is
apparent that she had no choice or In
fuence in the matter. BY said agree
ment she was given not more than
one tenth of his property in value In
my opinion. His lawyer was a friend
of hers and she talked to him about
the case and asked his advice, and
while he told her that he could not act
as her attorney, she understood him
to say that he would not act as the
attorney for either. Out Of sympathy
, for her and feeling to accommodate
, Ter in her distress the defendants
counsel permitted himself to give her
advice in substance to the effect that
if he were in her place he would let
the defendant have divorce. I have
, No doubt but that he was honest in
what he said to her and that what ne
said was prompted by feeling OF
kinGr ess rather than disposition tc
, do her a wrong. but the result was
, very unfortunate. 1t was also unfor-
tunate that having advised her he die
not defer the signing of the agreement
until she had had an opportunity tc
consult lawyer Of her own selection
Too Much Haste.
It was further unfortunate that he
, permitted her in a day or two after
said agreement was signed to come tt
l his office and talk about the case ant
. further that he made any suggestions
lc her ITS to an attorney to look after
ner case The attorney chosen is 6
most honorable practitioner and I an
: convinced that he acted honorably ant
} in good faith in the matter. but HI
= was mislead by reason of what hat
/ transpired before he was called int
: the case; the parties had alread!
signed the written agreement provid
| ing lOT d QIflSlOll OIL lllGlT property, l
: had been drawn up and signed in tn
: presence of an attorney; he doubtless
;, to-, k il for granted that his client I'm
v d"r>tood it lr had acted voluntarily
t and so believing, was not disposed t.
+ insist on ignoring it: and while he Sc
n cnrrd !or her 8 re ii.tii amenG,Een
+ thereto, amounting to $3.50 to s400 il
- favor of his client, it is apparent the
i he treated said agreement as the vol
: untary act of his client because tn
n additional allowance given on his sug
d gestion is in the nature of an amend
g. ment. I feel quite certain that II sh
l. had gone to her attorney unintiuence
+ by any advice that the defendants at
~ torney had given her and before sh
=, had signed an~ such agreement, he
. attorney would have secured a ver
II different settlement for her. In shor
L instead of her going originally to he
IS
d d a = 1rir