The daily morning oasis. [volume] (Nogales, Ariz.) 1917-1920, 1920-07-18

yesterday Cn6re was Illeu III the
Superior Court Judgment granted
by Judge A. c. Lockwood of the
Superior Court of Cochise county,
who sat in trial of the cause in
Santa Cruz, in place Of Judge W. A.
O'Connor, who was disqualified, in
which Judgment Judge Lock-
wood sets aside a divorce grant
ed Natran Leeker the we'll known
Nogales merchant, from Dora Katz
Leeker, his wife, the mother Of his
two sons, Henry and Abraham
Leeker.
1t will be recalled that on the
sixth DAY of January last, a decree
of divorce was entered in Nathan
Leeke; s favor.
As set forth in her motion to set
aside that judgment of divorce Mrs.
Leeke" averred that she had been
jobbed and defrauded of her rights
by her counsel, who had not pre-
sented her case nor submitted tes-
timonv in support thereof. The
counsel to whose doors she laid
that charge are New York lawyers
named Andrews and Betha. In that
motto, Mrs. Leeker alleged that she
had net desired a divorce, but asked
an action for separate maintenance;
but that those Gotham attorneys in
stituted suit for divorce. To that
petition Mr.. Leeker's counsel, Frank
J. Barry ESQ.,, Of Nogales, filed a
cross-complaint, praying that he be
granted divorce. Then, before go
ing - trial the New York lawyers
withdrew Mrs. Leeker's complaint
and let the case go to trial upon
MIR. Leeker's cross complaint, put
ting in no evidence for their client,
wher they had an abundance of evil
dence upon which to support all al
legations in her complaint; and per-
mittins a Judgment for divorce to
Mr.. Leeker
When Mrs. Leeker found that her
husband had divorced her she dis
charged the attorneys who had put
her in position so equivocal, re-
tainire S. F. Noon and Duane Bird
to secure reversal Of the judgment
,gainst her. Messrs Noon and Bird
called into the case Messrs Duffy
4 Purdum, and those four attorneys
cond,tted further proceedings on be-
half OF Mrs. Leeke1, eliminating IN
he Judgment mentioned.
The case is very interesting one
and allegations made in the motion
for IL new trial, which motion is q
part the court record, make very
racy reading. In fact the whole mo-
ton, with accompanying affidavits
letters and the judgment would al
make juicy reading. They fill 2E
pages of typewriter manuscript
some of it closely written, anc
would fill at least three pages Of
this issue of "The Oasis" which
neither time nor space will permit
but the following excerpts viii
throw into strong relief the higi
lights of the case:
The motion starts off with al
affidavit by Mrs. Leeker, the frs
paragraph of which reads:
"Dcra Katz Leeker, being frs
luly sworn, deposes and says: Thu
she is The plaintiff and cross de
fendant in the above entitled &c
ton, and the person against whom ,
decree of divorce entered in thu
above entitled action, in the judg
ment tf said court on the 9th day OF
January, 1920; that said judgmen
was ~ afted because affiant's at
torneys fraudulently refused, neg.
lected and failed tc follow affiant'
requests and instructions, and failet
and neglected to introduce at the
trial If said action evidence then il
posse ySion and at The command @.
affiant and her said attorneys; tina
said c.idence would have establish
ed TO: affiant complete defence tt