Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1867-05-25
Romance i'm Real Life.

SINGULAR DIVORCE CAsE-A HUSBAND
FOUND AFTER THIRTY YEARS ABSENCE
RECONCILIATION AND SECOND DEsERTIoN.
| From the Chicago Tribune eth inst
! A bill of divorce has been filed in the Cir
cult Court by Catharine against John Spell
man, which presents many unusual features.
The bill alleges that the parties were mar.
ried during the year 1880, at Meguglemucf,
in the county of Mayo, Ireland. They lived
| together till some day in May, 1885. The
five years of their married life resulted in the
birth of three children, Patrick p. Spellman,
| now aged thirty five Bridget Craig (wife of
Owen Craig), now thirty -four years of age,
and Michael SpellmaD, now aged thirty two
years.
About the time of the birth Of the last
child, it is charged that the defendant alb
seconded from his native soil, taking his way
to some land unknown to his family Two
years after his wife received letter from
John, remitting to her twenty dollars
Eighteen months after she acknowledges the
receipt of fifteen dollars accredited to the
faitbless John by the hand of his brother
Patrick This last remittance was made
from New York. 1t is charged in this con-
nection that the respondent having left his
home and three small children and wife,
about fifty dollars worth of furniture, the
amount RENTED was insufficient to the sup
port of the family.
No further communication was had be-
tween the two branches of the family until
the year 1856. In the year $50 the desert
ed wife says she came to New York. She
stayed there some time and migrated to
Philadelphia, as she claims, in search of her
husband and livelihood. She subsequently,
Ca me to this county, and on the 18th day of
October, 1865, her eldest son saw his father
in the county of Stephenson, Illinois,
wealthy farmer, with a second wife and a
family of two children to assist him in the
performance of his agric ultural labors. The
second wife is charged to be one Sarah Aus
tin, known as Sarah Spellman or Mrs. Spell
man, and with her he is said to have lived
twenty-eight years two children have been
the result of the bigamous connection. This
discovery being made, correspondence en-
seed between the parties interested in the
first marriage and the volator of the marital
bond. 1t resulted in his visiting Philadel-
phia, where he met (as is charged) his wife,
on the 18th day of January, 1866. He made
protest of renewed affection, of revived
love, and she alleges that, believing the pro-
testations, she consented, on condition that
he would have, never more, aught 70 do
with Sarah Austin, to pardon him his de-
linquencies, and receive him to husbands
share of her affection and home. A further
moving reason to this condonement is al
legged to be the fact that the defendant had
property and the wife had none.
Having reunited their fortunes the parties
lived together, after a separation CT over
thirty years, for two score days, and then, it
is alleged, the respondent proposed to return
to his farm in Stephenson county, to close
up his affairs and sell off his property Con.
tiding in his integrity, his wife charges that
she let him begone, and since that time she
never saw 'hide nor hair of him. She does
charge, however, tina: her best information
leads her to believe that he returned TO Sarah
Austin, known publicly as his wife, with
whom she charges he committed adultery,
and is now living in state of open violation
of the law.
The defendant in this case is represented
to be a man of means. His estate is valued
at thirty thousand dollars, yielding an an
nual income of three thousand dollars. He
is said 20 own section and a quarter of cul-
tivated land in Stephenson county, with al
most any quantity of necessary farming
utensils, cattle, etc.