“Theoretically it could be done in a day, but practically it takes a little longer. For we must avoid the look of collusion like the plague. So we'll allow, say, a week. If we're lucky with our judges, it may take less.” Then he outlined the steps to be taken. An unusual chain of circumstances enabled him to carry them out with unexpected neatness and despatch, so that the case became a very model of how gracefully the rigid laws of divorce could be manipulated in the Year of Our Lord 1916 and of the Founding of the Republic 140. It may be interesting to outline the procedure as a social document in chicanery, or social surgery, as one wills to call it. McNiven first laid under Charity's eyes a summons and complaint against Peter Cheever. She glanced over it and found it true except that Zada L'Etoile was not named; Cheever's alleged income was vastly larger than she imagined, and her claim for alimony was exorbitant. Her first question was: “Who is this unknown woman going by the name of Sarah Tishler? I thought Miss L'Etoile was to be the only woman mentioned.” McNiven explained: “L'Etoile is her stage name. She doesn't know her real name herself, for she was taken from the foundling-asylum as a child by a family named Tishler. We have taken advantage of that disadvantage.” Charity bowed to this, but she protested the income credited to her husband. “Peter doesn't earn half as much as that.” “How do you know what he earns?” said McNiven. “He's told me often enough.” “Do you believe all he told you?” “No; but, anyway, I don't want any of his old alimony. I have money enough of my own.” “That can be arranged later, but if you don't swear to this as it lies you can't have your divorce.” “Why not?” “Because there has to be a contest, and we've got to give his lawyer something to fight.” Charity yielded wearily. She fought against making an affidavit to the truth of the complaint, but when McNiven said, “No affidavit, no divorce,” she took her oath before the clerk who was called in as a notary public. “Now you may go home,” said McNiven; and Charity stole out, feeling herself a perjured criminal. Then the divorce-mill began to grind. A process-server from McNiven's office went across Broadway to Tessier's office, where Cheever was waiting. He handed the papers to Cheever, who handed them to Tessier, who hastily dictated an answer denying the adultery, the alleged income, and the propriety of the alimony claimed. Tessier and Cheever visited McNiven in his office and served him with this answer. The two lawyers then dictated an agreement to a reference, Tessier adding a statement that he considered his client equipped with a good defense and that he intended to oppose the suit in good faith. Their clerks took this to the County Court House in City Hall Square and filed it with the clerk of the Supreme Court, Special Term, Part II.