The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1909-11-13
Consequently Mrs. Emma
Brown, Formerly of Pitts
burg, Brought Suit for Sep
aration in the Local Court.
VERY PECULIAR CASE
WAS UNCOVERED TODAY
Woman's Husband, by a Ruse,
Obtained a Divorce - She
Sought to Have It Reversed
And Thought 1t Had Been.

When Judge Fox sustained the plea
of abatement of defendants counsel
this morning, in the case of Emma
Harrie Brown against Orville
Brown for divorce. one of the most
peculiar cases. filled with many com.
plications. was thrown out of court.
A certified decree of a divorce, OBJ
tained by the defendant in the ALE
gheny circuit court at Pittsburg. was
produced, thus making it unnecessary
for the case to be tried here.
Roscoe E. Kirkman represented the
plaintiff while Robert Study was
counsel for the defendant. Both en-
livened the situation by characteriz-
ing the Pittsburg courts as corrupt, and
the attorneys practicing in Pittsburg
as grafters.
Induced Her to Leave.
In explaining the situation, the at
torneys said that in 1908. Orville
Brown, who at that time was living
with his wife in Pittsburg, obtained a
divorce on the charge of abandonment.
WI. AL hudu S1lu tudL tuc uuSDduu
had induced his wife to leave on a
visit, and that after she had been away
the required length of time, he secured
a divorce. His wife did not know of
the action until after the divorce was
granted. and her former husband was
married the next day after obtaining
the decree.
Mrc fhon fhrnrnOh hnr
Pittsburg attorneys, instituted pro-
ceedings to have the divorce decree set
aside and the case was juggled through
the courts until September, 1907, when
the divorce decree granted four years
previous was sustained. Mrs. Brown,
so her attorney alleges. was not ia
miliar with the fact that she had lost
her case, her Pittsburg attorney fail
ing to notify her, and she also alleged
she had never received any notice from
the clerk of the Allegheny court. Be-
lieving that the divorce decree granted
her husband in 1903, had been set
aside, she then instituted steps in the
local courts for divorce. The grounds
were failure to provide. and other al
legations. Mrs. Brown has been liv-
ing here with her parents in F'airview
for several years, and being a legal
resident, could institute the action
here.
Roasts Pittsburg Lawyers.
The husband, who was plaintiff in
the Pittsburg divorce case, was made
defendant in the local action. He and
his second wife, with their child, had
moved to Davenport, Iowa. and he
wrote here, retaining Mr.. Study as his
attorney. Mr.. Study investigated the
case and obtained transcripts from the
clerk of the Allegheny county court,
showing that Mrs. Brown had lost in
the original divorce case and like
wise allowed her action to set aside
this judgment to go by default.
Mr. Kirkman, in discussing the ac-
tions of his clients Pittsburg attorney
toward her. said that he did not act in
a professional manner. He said that
the attorneys practicing at the Pitts
burg bar. likewise in st. Louis. were
after nothing but the money, no matter
how they obtained it.
Mr. Study held grievance against
the clerk of the Allegheny court from
whom he obtained the transcript of the
proceedings of the divorce case. He
said that the clerk tried to graft by
writing him that it would be necessary
for him to pay transcript fee of S24.
He finally obtained the decree for 50.
which he thinks is very large amount
considering what similar transcript
could be obtained for in the local
court.