THE JUDGES STORY.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXI, Issue XVIII, 29 October 1898, Page 552

THE JUDGES STORY.

In response to requests from several of the Court Benchers for a story the one called the Judge said: ‘The woman in the case died a few weeks ago, and I will tell you of one of the most curious divorce complications I ever met with in my many years of practice.’ After the noise made by the moving nearer of those who were anxious to hear the tale had subsided, the Judge, with the shadow of anger on his handsome, clean-shaven old face, began anew: ‘I saiii it was a divorce case, yet it was not; it was a piece of villainy on the part of a dishonest lawyer, which, had it been known, would have blasted the reputation of a noble woman and perhaps killed her. 1 have never told the story, and onljdo so now because of the warning it may give to some other woman not to accept as genuine a decree of divorce, although it bear the signature of an upright judge and the seal of a court whose officers are above suspicion.’ ‘lf the judge’s signature was genuine and the seal had been regularly attached it was all right,’ remarked a young lawyer. ‘Such an instrument might not always be safe,’ retorted the Judge,

‘as you will learn from what I am about to tell you.’ Here the speaker hesitated for a few moments, during which he seemed to be considering how much to tell and what to keep to himself, and then said: ‘Even though the woman is at rest from all the wrongs of this world 1 will not tell you her name. She never knew how the reputable citizen, the good father, the distinguished man she had been so proud to can husband had tricked ami deceived her. Mis temptation was great, for his wife—let us give her that sacred name—was one oi the most beautiful women 1 have ever known. She was as good, as pure a woman as ' ‘1 object,’ exclaimed one of the Benchers. ‘All that’s pretty enough, but it’s not material, and this court wants only facts, nothing but facts." Several of the listeners laughed at the remark, while the Judge, with a gracious bow, said: T sustain the objection and will give you facts, homely enough, but strange and sad. ‘lt is necessary.’ he went on, ‘that you may fully understand the case at bar, to give you an outline history of the persons connected with my story; there were four, to wit, the wronged woman, her first husband, the man who deceived her, ami a rascally old lawyer. ‘The first were born and passed their earlier years in a small village. They were all children of well-to-do parents. The woman was the daughter of a clergyman. She was very pretty, and when 18 years old was the acknowledged belle of the place. Among her many suitors there were two who were the most favoured.

These two young men were —but. I must give them fictitious names— Henry A., who became the woman’s husband, and Charles Z. I will not tell you anything of the woman’s love story or why she married Henry A., who was a somewhat wild young fellow. She refused the other one, who afterward became very rich, which I mention in passing because you want plain facts, and are most interested in the legal questions that form the romantic part of the story.’ ‘Tell it in your own way,’ exclaimed several persons, and the Judge continued. ‘Some fifteen years after the marriage of his sweetheart to his rival, Z met her at the home of a mutual friend. After that he visited her, learned that her husband had abandoned her, and that she was making her living by giving music lessons. He soon fell madly in love with her. She learned, also, that she. too. loved. ‘The lover was in despair. He could not get evidence enough against the woman’s husband to secure an absolute divorce for her. I need not tell you that abandonment does not entitle a woman to more a separation. ‘Finally, Z. consulted a lawyer whose reputation was none too good, but who had had great success in

divorce actions. When he had laid the facts before Lawyer Q. that man said: ‘This is an easy case. You say the husband is a dissipated wretch. He win be only too glad to sue his wife—if you give him a hundred pounds—for an absolute divorce.’ ‘She will never agree to that. She is an honest woman—has done no wrong.’ ‘But,’ replied the lawyer, ‘she must confess that she has. 'xnat once done, the rest is easy enough.’ ‘She would never consent to that, as I would not allow her to do so.’ ‘ “You are both foolish to let a little thing like sentiment stand in the way of your happiness,” retorted Q., “but I think I see a plan to help you. Come to me to-morrow and I will tell you what I can do.”

‘The following day Z. again called on Lawyer Q., and was met with a smile and an assurance that all was satisfactory. ‘ “What do you mean?”

‘ “Look at that document,” exclaimed the lawyer, handing Z. a paper.

Z. glanced at it and w’as astounded to see that it was a decree granting to the woman he wished to marry an absolute divorce from her, husband. The decree, which gave her permission to resume her maiden name and to marry again, bore the name of a judge of the Supreme Court whose reputation was spotless. Affixed to the decree was the seal of the court, and the decree set forth that it was issued the previous afternoon —two hours after Z.’s first interview with Lawyer Q. For a few moments Z. was too much amazed to speak. When he had partly recovered he gasped: ‘ “How did you do it?” ‘ “Easy enough,” replied the lawyer, with an evil smile, adding, “Just pay me £l,OOO and this document is yours.”

‘ “But,” exclaimed the other, “how do I know that this decree is not a forgery.” “All you have to do is to ask the clerk of the court. Let any expert in handwriting examine the signature; ask the judge himself, but, for certain reasons, don’t let him see the names of the parties to the suit.”

‘ “Come with me,” exclaimed Z., “and bring that decree with you.” The pair hurried to the clerk of the court, and, showing him the judge’s signature to the decree, Z. asked him: “Is that name genuine?”

‘After a careful examination the clerk assured him that it was, and said the seal of the court was also genuine.

‘When the two men had once again reached the lawyer’s office, Z. remarked: “1 have no doubt that the signature and .seal are genuine, but how did you manage to get the decree ?”

‘“I don’t think you had better press me on that matter. All you have to do is to show Mrs A. the decree. That will satisfy her, and she will wed you.”

‘ “But,” exclaimed Z., “I must know all about this matter.”

‘ “Well,” said Q., “if you insist, I w... tell you. After you left me yesterday I hurried over to the court and listened to several divorce cases tried. I saw one poor woman who was almost in rags succeed in getting a decree of absolute divorce. I followed her out of the court and told her a wanted to buy her decree. At first she would not sell it. She feared that in parting with it she would part with her new found freedom. I convinced her that the court records were all she needed to prove that she had obtained a divorce, and for £2O bought the decree. Ten cents’ worth of acid soon removed the names of the original parties from the decree. I then had the names of the woman you want to marry and of her husband written in uy an artist in that kind of work, and there is a decree for your friend with the genuine signature of the judge and the seal of the court.”

‘lt took some little persuasion to induce Z. to deceive the woman he 10ve.., but soon his honour gave way to love, and after leaving his cheque for £l,OOO with old Q. he hastened away. He showed the decree to the woman. She believed that her husband had really divorced her, but could not understand how it had been done.

‘ “I have done no wrong,” she said “How could he get a divorce?”

‘ “He was a rascal,” said Z. “He wanted to marry another woman, and by the aid of false testimony got a decree of divorce from you. The hearing- came up late in the day in the judge’s private chambers, and there has been no publicity. If you attempt to set the decree- aside the whole matter will be made public.”

‘ The woman loved the man who told her these lies, and, believing the decree genuine, married him.’

Here the old lawyer ceased speaking for a short time, and then said: ‘There remains but little to tell. Some time after this marriage the first husband returned and learned of the marriage. Lawyer Q. got hold of him Before he saw his wife, and for an allowance of £2O a month the first husband agreed to keep silent. He has been living out west, and has married again, and has as much reason to fear publicity as Mr Z. The woman lived for twenty years with her second husband, and never doubted the genuineness of the decree of divorce. When Lawyer Q. was dying several years ago he told me the whole story, and added, with almost his dying breath: “That was one evil deed of mine that brought much happiness.” ’

Turning to the young lawyer who had interrupted him at the outset, the old lawyer said: ‘So you see. young man,that even though the signature and the seal be genuine, the instrument taken in its entirety may be false.’