28 Aug 1885 New Orleans Picayune
A CHICAGO SCANDAL
In Which Some Louisiana Excursionists are Involved
The Devious Way in Which D. P. Negley Sought to Obtain Possession of His Wife’s Child
Files Affidavit Against Judge Aleck Boarman
Special to the Picayune
Chicago – Aug. 27. A stylish young man, giving the name of D. P. Negley, swore out a warrant in Justice Brayton’s Court late Wednesday afternoon for the arrest of Judge Aleck Boarman, of Louisiana, and Johanna E. Negley, his wife, charging them with adultery, and alleging that the act occurred Aug. 26.
“I don’t want this thing to get into the newspapers,” he said, “and I don’t care to prosecute anyway, if I can get my child back.”
From his story it appeared that his wife had left him after nine years of married life spent mostly in Louisiana. She came to Chicago two months ago with her little three year old girl, with the intention of securing a divorce, she having been married in this state. He recently heard of her presence in Chicago and came here, seeing her frequently, he claims, in the presence of Judge Boarman, who is said to have treated her to carriage rides, and escorted her to places of amusement. When questioned closely he would not say where he came from of give any particulars, simply asserting that he was sure of the guilt of the parties he desired arrested; and that they had visited Geneva Lake together.
Soon after swearing out the warrant he with a friend named Clark visited the Palmer House, where Mrs. Negley had apartments, and learned that Mrs. Negley had gone out with Judge Boarman for a ride. He hastily mounted the stairs and carried away the child, which he found in the care of a nurse in Mrs. Negley’s rooms. The little girl is still in his possession.
Constable Hopkins met Judge Boarman on his return from the ride, but said he would not serve the warrant unless Negley ordered him to do so. He accompanied the Judge during the evening.
“I have known that woman since she was a child,” the Judge said to a reporter,” and my relations with her have always been proper. I never saw the husband in my life. Our meeting here was purely accidental. She came here some time ago for the purpose of getting a divorce, though I didn’t know that at the time. Two weeks ago I came to Chicago and accidentally met her, and since then I have been with her frequently because of our old friendship. My rooms are at the Grand Pacific and hers at the Palmer.”
A strenuous effort was made during the night to have the matter kept out of the papers, but as the Chicago Tribune, it is said, refused to agree to kill the report, though the other papers were willing, the case appeared with more or less detail in other papers here this morning, and has been made the sensation of the afternoon.
Early today Negley skipped out of the city, taking the child with him. He is believed to have gone West. None of the parties appeared in Justice Brayton’s court today.
To your correspondent Mrs. Negley said: “Some four years ago I was married to Mr. Negley, in the State of Illinois. He was a traveling man, and for a time I accompanied him from city to city. We did not agree, and seven months ago he wrote to me that he had decided that it was best we should live apart; since that time I have never seen him. I determined to obtain a divorce, and a few weeks ago came to Chicago for that purpose. My papers are now in the hands of my attorney, and will be filed at an early day. In the South I had known Judge Boarman, a single man, who ranks high in his profession, and meeting him here in Chicago, I naturally consulted him in regard to my case. My husband wanted to induce me to give up the divorce idea, and that is the cause of the trouble. In company with Mrs. Green, Judge Boarman and Mr. Day, I drove out to Washington Park yesterday afternoon, leaving my child in charge of a nurse. When I returned, my child was gone. I became excited. I rushed to my room only to be confronted by an officer who read something to me—what it was I don’t know. I wanted to go out and search the city for my child, but they would not let me. I was given to understand that I was under arrest. I summoned my friends as you know, and they advised me to wait until morning. I am now calm, and am sure I will get my little girl in a day or two. I suppose I am under arrest, but what for I have no idea. Neither do I know when I have to appear to answer. My nurse tells me that my husband, when in the room yesterday afternoon, discovered some red flannel underclothing in the alcove belonging to the nurse, which he mistook for a man’s underwear, and became quite excited over it. This is perfectly outrageous. I never aw anything like it. Why, my nurse occupies that alcove every night. But you can say that all my husband’s charges are false, and he will have to prove them if he can.”
“Are you willing to give up your child?” asked the correspondent.
“Never!” she said with flashing eyes. “I’ll die first. I understand that he proposes to withdraw his charge against me on condition that I let him keep her. I shall carry the case to the courts first. I want an unconditional surrender of my child, and if I was near him now I would tear her from his arms.”
Though Constable Hopkins made the arrest Wednesday night, the Judge has not yet been brought into court. Judge Boarman denies that he was arrested at all, and the constable cannot be found. The constable rushed into court this afternoon and said to Clerk Cummings: “ You _____ fool. Why did you tell the reporters about that warrant? You could have made $500 by keeping your mouth shut.”
Negley, it is said, threatens to ventilate the whole matter in the divorce court if any attempt is made to take the child from him.
It is said that Negley and the Judge had a secret interview lasting two hours before Negley left.
J. V. Clarke, Negley’s employer, a show card dealer here, said tonight: “Mr. Negley is a perfect gentleman. He is out of town, but will return soon to get a divorce from his wife. He was married to his wife over four years ago, and the child is three. Mrs. Negley claims that the child is hers by a former marriage, but that’s all wrong, the child is Negley’s.
Judge Boarman, when seen tonight, said he supposed Negley concocted the story as part of his scheme to get hold of the child.
Regarding the alleged former marriage, Mrs. Negley was seen again tonight. “I was only 16 when I married my first husband,” she said, “and I do not want to give his name because the New Orleans papers would copy it. He married me, having another wife living and ________ (illegible). My child Lula is by him. My present husband, Mr. Negley, proved to me the fact of my bigamous marriage with my first husband, and as soon as I had got a divorce, he married me. We could not agree, however, and about seven months ago we agreed to separate. Mr. Negley told me he was satisfied I should have a divorce.
Mr. Negley told a reporter he was married nine years. Mrs. Negley certainly looks six or eight years older than she claims to be. She says she is only 21.
