Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-01-30
JUDGE ROBERTS GIVES MRS.
SARAH FLETCHER ONE WEEK
TO MAKE UP HER MIND AS TO
PROCEDURE.
CHARGES HUSBAND
WITH ACTUAL FRAUD
COURT SAYS THAT INTERVIEW
ORS HAVE ESTABLISHED CASE
AND THAT MRS. FLETCHER WAS
GREATLY WRONGED.

Judge Roberts says in an opinion,
handed down late yesterday after
noon, that he believes Harrison H.
Fletcher, prominent South Side
lumber dealer, secured his divorce
from his wife last September by
actual fraud. One week issgiven Mrs.
Fletcher to determine whether she
shall ask the court to set aside the
divorce proceeding or whether she
will let it stand The court says he
will act accordingly.
Was Imposed Upon.
If Mrs. Fletcher decides to allow
aside she will be at liberty to COM
that event the court just as much as
Judge Roberts sets out in his opinion
not receive more than one tenth of
the property of Mr.. Fletcher and this
after she had assisted in rearing his
thirteen children. He further says
that at the age of 81. Mrs. Fletcher
will have no income except her little
home while her former husband in
all oDdlllIy Will DS d man pOo-
sessed of wealth of $4,000 to 100000.
In the original divorce proceeding
the first attorney employed was John
w. Lewis who counseled with Mr. and
Mrs. Fletcher as long as was possible,
according to Judge Roberts opinion.
Attorney A. w. Enoch was later
called into the case, and the divorce
was granted by Judge D. M. Ander-
son.
The Proceedings.
Some weeks later Mrs. Fletcher en-
ployed Chester w. Whitmore of this
city and l. S. Pepper of Muscatine,
| to commence proceedings against
Fletcher to set aside the decree and
for divorce of her own and alimony.
Because of a threat of Harrison H.
Fletcher to take away the two minor
children from her, Mrs Fletcher. as
stated in the courts opinion, desired
that the proceeding be dismissed. At.
torneys Pepper and Whitmore would
not dismiss the suit, believing that d
great injustice had been done Mrs
Fletcher. She therefore employed
W. W. Rankin to dismiss, and then
Whitmore and Pepper stepped into
the case as intervenors and In the
words of the court, my conclusion is
that the intervenors have established
their said contention"
| Whatever Mrs Fletcher decides to
do in the matter the court has order
ed that the costs of the case be tax
ed UP against Harrison H. Fletcher
as we'll as Mrs. Fletcher and that the
intervenors be allowed an attorneys
fee of $500.
The Opinion.
The opinion of Judge Roberts fol
lows in full:
In the district court of Wapello
county, Iowa, January term, 1908.
Sarah Fletcher. plaintiff, VS.. Harrison
per and C. w. Whitmore, inter
venors.
This matter as it now stands of re
cord is not only peculiar but is also
embarrassing. It is one of those pro
ceedings in which much has been said
as though the questions to be deter
mined were mainly questions affect
ing certain attorneys in the case
rather than to determine matters be
tween the original parties to the case
in fact the only question directly sub
mitted for determination is the RICH
of the intervenors to recover an, at
torney's fee for services rendered tt
the plaintiff in this proceeding; bu
in order to determine that question
it is necessary to investigate tn:
charges made on the facts stated il
the petition which they prepared ant
filed for the plaintiff in this case
Said petition charges fraud and col
fusion between the defendant, his at
torney and the attorney who acted TO
the plaintiff in the divorce proceeding
in which the decree was entered il
this court in September, 1907. Defer
dant's counsel charges the last nan
ed intervenor above, with maliciou
and unprofessional conduct in prepal
inc said petition and attribute the a
legations therein charging fraud an
, collision to said interVenor alone
view of the fact that charges c
fraud and unprcfessiona conduct ar
made in the pleadings against men
bers of the bar, who are officers of tn
court. | have permitted counsel o
4 both sides to make full shown!
}, and after listening carefully to sue
t showing I am fully convinced thu
0 there is no basis in the record for tn
conclusion that any of the attorney
in the case have acted from wron
intention, or an improper motive.
to intervenors. they did not see
: plaintiffs case. She employed thel
y and stated to them the facts relativ
n to the divorce case from which ST
claimed to have been greatly wron
n ed she did not go 10 the attorne
;, who had appeared as her attorney
: the divorce case. but sought out i
h tervenors and asked them to secul