The copper era and Morenci leader., 1916-05-05
DISARMAMENT PROCEEDINGS
 DISMISSED AGAINST WALL

1916; this year.
 :. MT. Richey: In respect to the pay hent of this $21 % to this witness, we call to the attention of the court the date of filing this action in this court, June 4, 1915, the payment back to her being since the filing of this ac- tion. That is all.
 The Court: What time in 1913 did you first go to MT. Wall to get your di- vorce? A. I don't remember exactly; I had the date but lost it; it was be tween the last part of November and along in December
 o. 1913? A. Yes, sir.
 MT. Worsley: Q. Well, if you wanted to get your money back why didn't you see Mr. Wall? A We'll, where did I have the money to see him with; it takes nearly every cent I can make to take care of two child ren.
 o. We'll, you didn't try to see him? A. We'll, if I had had the money would.
 Q. But you figured that filing this affidavit to disbar him would help get your money back? A. I don't know. Here followed testimony to show that Hagan brought the affidavit to the witness and secured her signature although the witness admitted that she signed it willingly. MT. Worsley: Q. Then, MT. Wall paid you all the money back except the $15.00 court costs? A. The notary public had it wrote in typewriting that it cost $10. % and it was marked over with a lead pencil or pen-I don't know which-$15. %. o. Do you know how much it costs to file a case in the Superior Court? A. I had a lawyer look it up for me and he said it was only $10. and that was to go to the court O. Who did you have look this up? A. MT. Horton. c. Did you consider it was worth anything at all for drawing the com plaint, and counselling with you? A. He never spoke to me about anything only when 1 come down and looked him up.
 Q. When you asked him to file the complaint didn't you tell him all about the case? A. Yes, sir. o. Didn't you talk to MT. Wall and take up his time telling him all about your domestic troubles? A. I didn't consider that time because he didn't do anything at all.
 0. You didn't take up any of his time telling him about your husband; how many times did you talk with him about it in his office? A. I couldn't exactly tell; know I have been down here three times.
 The Court: o. When did MT. Wall pay you the money back? A. It was in February; I couldn't exactly tell you; it was in February; when got the letter from the American Con- sul; it was in February.
 MT. Worsley: Q. You are sure it was in February? A. Yes, sir, am sure it was in February
 MT. Richey: Now, if the Court please, for the purpose of record, desire to call the Courts attention to the date of the affidavit, which is at tached to the complaint as Exhibit E, MT. Worsley: We object to his calling this to the attention of the court; the record speaks for itself. Mr. Richey:> As being dated May 19, 1915.
 The Court: That may be argued, MT. Richey.
 MT. Richey: Now,fo the purpose of record-that this complaint was filed on the 4th day of June and this di- vorce was filed on the 9th; days later.
 The Court: That divorce proceed ing was filed 5 days later than this proceeding against MT. Wall? 1 MT. Richey: Yes sir: I just de- sire to get that matter in the record, and call the courts attention to it. We offer the records of this Court in behalf of this Court as further evi- dence of the fact of the time that MT. Wall is charged with having these funds and not doing anything for them, and as evidence in corrobora- tion of this witness. The Court: That is, the date of fil- ing of this proceeding against MT. Wall?
 MT. Richey: A Yes. The Court: Very well, it may be of fered.
 Testimony of Chas. Lara. Witness testified in substance as follows: That he knows F. E. i Wall and knew him very well during February and March of 1913; that he had a business transaction with MT Wall involving a divorce for one Lean dra Bretado Rivas; that he had never paid a five cent piece to MT. Wall in connection with this divorce matter or for any purpose. Attention of wit ness directed to Exhibit I, in which he stated he had employed Mr. Wall to secure a divorce for Mrs. Rivas and had paid MT. Wall therefor $45 .00. Witness stated that the affidavit did not contain facts. Witness asked to explain how he came to sign such af- fidavit; and stated Tt was this way; MT. Wall came to where | was at work and told him to go over to the house and tell the lady to give him that money, but I can't swear whether she gave him the money or not, be- cause she does not exist, she is dead" 1 Upon cross examination witness tes- | tified that the Hagans had been after
 { Continued on Page 8