The Washington times., 1914-05-19
.NBROSE TOG|VE
FURTHER EVIDENCE
,ttorney in Finley Case viii
Continue as Witness in
Wright Probe.

Attorney William B. Ambrose. with
testimony only half completed, will
1e the witness stand again tomor-
w when the Mccoy subcommittee OF
House Judiciary Committee. re-
mes the Wright impeachment investi-
ton. The testimony of Mr.. Ambrose
important because his name as at
rney has figured in both the
lusCker and Finley divorce cases,
ont which the committee has heard
ch for the past ten days Each of
ese involved cases We're before Jus
= Wright IN some form or other,
Summary of Testimony.
v men Mr.. Ambrose took the stand
.te. yesterday, following the close OF
ne Times report. he testified in brief:
Thai he had been guilty OF no collu-
VI in obtaining evidence in the Fin
~ divorce case and had not procured
vidence TO be used against his own
liert.
That he quit as Finley's attorney
yLen Finley made such accusation
IicT 10 the proceedings which brought
N d setting aside by Justice Wrigh:
# The Finley divorce decree.
That he knew, however, that Finley
I.mself had supplied the evidence. but
H. made no effort to press the answer
o the suit. Ambrose said he regretted
"a, he had let the matter go through.
rowing this.
That Justice Wright acted properly
II setting aside the decree later.
Attorney Ambrose told OF being pres
dann ncgf hafv, salr
u the Finley divorce case, but he said
did not remember the witnesses whu
sserted that they had seen the hus-
and in the division" He recalled that
ne OF the witnesses was named Film
ers, but did not know whether a man
'amed Stohlman was present or not,
Did you consider this a contested
Iivorce case?' asked Mr.. Mccoy.
1t should have been. but evidence
"as taken only on one side. and evil
Ct said Ambrose.
Nature of Decree.
Did you say anything to Justice
Wright al the time the decree was
gned?"
Il do not remember now. I may have
aid the case was made out against
-inley. but 1 was more concerned with
ne nature of the decree, the financial
'equirements imposed on my client"
Mr.. Ambrose related how Finley fire.
Iently came to him after the decree
\ as entered, and kicked on the pay-
uent of alimony. Finley said he ought
.ot to be required to pay aIimony."
aid Ambrose. Finley got in arrears
md Mrs. Finley began ACTION
Ambrose, said that he, quit, Finley"
b hen Attorney Easby-Smith came to
l'u and informed him that Finley had
nade charges of collusion.
4 told Easby-Smith that Finley's
h2rGes against me were not true; thai
lad been in no collusion, and, when
SAW Finley at Easbs Smiths offices
tord him he lied. Tten Finley said
ie lad not intended to cay that di-
ierGe, buI that he and Mr.. Colbert had
1le out from my offi-e and arranged
p this to be done.
- had nothing further to do with
riley after that. The next time /
a % vacate the decree
Tore Up Notes.
Amtrose said when notified by Justice /
of the collusion charges made
Y f'inley. he denied them. and went
, the hearing in Justice Wright's
namhers in an angry frame OF mind. |
aIrying a stenographer with him. !
'Ia;ty, he said, finally told the truth. |
No ] had no further concern" After
was over, said Ambrose, ne tore M |
ne sienogrsphic notes of the hearing, |
{, nscribed after Finley had exoner-
Ted him.
On second thought / lut the notes in
p" fles," said Ambrose, "and 1t was
: ese notes tnat were read here to-
Ay."
WAC did Finley retain after you got
I. oil tie case?'
Attorney Macdonald appeared in this
=, cced'ng?"
Why did you quit?"
p cause he told EaS by-Smith that /
ad helped TO procure the evidence 1
M him fttE."
The original petition for divorce filed
" Mrs. Finley and the answer pre-
AIRED by Attorney Ambrose when
hown the witness were Identified, and |
he interrosations then turned to these
Xhibits.
What conversation was had between
ou and Finley on the allegations in the
etitiOn at the time the answer was
lade?" asked Chairman Mccoy.
Suggested Separation.
The same as | had with him at the
Inception OF the case TO the effect that
Q did not want TO subject TO embarass-
lent her folks. I told him if he will
Illy gave her evidence of his own sup
osed intidelity il would be colIusive.
told him he would hold me respon-
ble for his act as iCEg as he lived.
suggested a separation and a money
for her support, but he
ould not consent TO this. and We filed
he answer The next day after he
anne 10 me and took up the alimony
latter | again told him that he should
Umbat the divorce petition OF Mrs.
inley. and not submit TO any alimony
yntract | said he could not afford
, let the bill go unchallenged."
When did you nrst learn that Finley
sd furnished evidence against him
sIf"''
After the divorce dill was filed and
efore the cross-bill OF answer was
Iade
Did you ask Fimley as TO the truth
r unLruth of the allegations in the
iyorce bill?"
u don't recall having asked him"
DO you wish the committee 10 un-
erstand that you did not get a denial