attorney ia King's county. Bebai bean iu Jn.ll, but it wasn *t hit fault. *f Mr. Campbell*■ visit on departed, promising to return on Monday with a copy of the divorce so that Mr. Campbell could teo whether or not the handwriting resembled bis own.From Campbell's oflics Mr. Pendleton and the reporter went direct to Mr, Knicbt ’§ office in the Pulitzer building. ]lushes recognized Pendleton at once••Why, bow ere you, Pendleton?1’ be said cheerfully.Hughes was very nervous.Finally Pendleton said; * ‘1 received a letter in September from Mr. Campbell. Of course you know of my troubles from the papers.11* * I hadn 't beard a word about it/* said Hughes.‘«rvebada lot of unpleasant notoriety ,1 * said Pendleton. This miserable business Las ruined me. I’m poor, now.11i want my MOnf.v back.1*‘'There won rt be tiny tr©uble about that, ' * replied Hughes, r«»mptly. am willing to return my share. You know,11 Ho said, **I thought that divorce was all right. 1 thought my Chicago correspondent was sir night, liedeceived me.*’Mr. Pendleton said, *1 expert penmenmvv that th*» baud writing In «lit- body of that divorce paper you guv** to me and the bund writing of the letter from Campbell are the stun*. 1 think that Campbell wrote the divorce. ’'Judii’t l show you a letter from our Chicago man about the dlvore? that ought to prove that we were ail right and noting in good faith.11•M don't remember your having shown me such a letter,*' said Pendleton. “VVell, we were dechrvo J ,1' saidH ughes,■ • 1 really thought that the divorce was all straight. Now about returning the money you paid; of course you dou’t want all of It?1 ** * Jl V tiny CENT, ’' SAID I'KNDLGToX. There followed a dispute about theamount of money Pendleton had pail, lie said it was S-60, Hughes said that it wa* not more than $210, Pendleton said lie bad receipts for all the money, and Hughe* sail if thiit was the case be had nothing to say, but lie wanted to seethey secured a-^Uogy I t tie o*ii ut . _ jBroadway.From the tnct* wbi h nr? r *er.t ! cwould appear the superior court of C'n ■'lt; i county, Illinois, occupied tfc? d ttry little office with them, or U 1: didcot the men who assuss-d the functiooa of tbe court ixopTiDted its #eal with a counterfeit die and forged the name of Clerk P. McGrfti of that court to a certificate appended to ft document purporting to be a divorce, for which Hughes 5: Campbell received £lb.The subject covers a whole page of the Sun, and fat* simile cuts arc given cf the divorce certificate aui other bogus papers.caused a SIXSaTK K.Special to the Gazette.New Yoke, Dec. 22,—The develop*mint* in the fraudulent divorce rase of ex-May or Villiam S. Pendleton caused a sensation to-day. The law firm iu question was that of Hughes k Campbell, then of :i22 IJroad-way. 1:ach member of the firm it? n »win buainess for himself. Lawyer P. H. Campbell, oue of the lawyers accused I Mr. Pendleton, now has an o 111 caul *j'j) Broadway,When your reporter called tbcre te-ilr. Campbell eU), **l am hereready to meet any charges that may he brought ugaiust me. I never know that a divorce had been secured for hi in by our firm or that any such claim was Elude, and I do net yet belie o it. If it turns out tliut Mr. Pendleton's story is true, then1 HAVE BEEN DECEIVE!*, hut 1 can’t t* how his statements can he true. There la one statement thitl is uol true, and that is to the effect that he saw the Advertisement ia n newspaper.Wo did not advertise in any paper. Wo bod done business for Mr. Pendleton before the time of the alleged divorce proceeding*. IDs insinuation that the handwriting in the fraudulent divorce Is the same a* that of the letters 1 wrote him has uo foundation; in fact, 1 absolutely deny that 1 hud anything to do with the decree or divorce in uuy wav.1 *Win you pay Mr, Pendleton the money ho claims to have given your firm?1 ** * I toll you, as I told him on Saturday