The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1874-01-15
PAULINE LUGCh'5 DIVORCE.
what Followed thc Tarsing os q
Wounded E'r1.EcG-SrIlsai..s. Soldier.


Wounded Er,srco-Prnsai..u Soldier.
F:O,u < NV YORK SlH.
Maria Pauline Won Rhade, better kuown
10 the American public as Pauline Lucca,
~as married in 1865. Gu her visit to tuis
country she ins:itutel suit Of diycrce
against her husband, who was still in
Berlin. The SUMMONS L.li Of coar.e to De
served by publication, bat there seems to
have been number of technical faults
By mistake in making up the orjsr Of
publication, I Marine Cpur: Summons was
,Ac!.e!, requiring the de:endan, t. answer
ii siz days Instead ,f twcuty days as il
shol!d have been. This. however, was
corrected il the actual publication. The
order directed :. copy 10 he mai.ei to the
defendant a. b ria, PrI,sil. 10 .2sIre
lts reaching him. the CLERK pu. on the
envelope the husbands club. The order
OF reference was o6tslEed a day before the
time for Won Rhltle to answer ha,! expired.
and last and worst Of al, the single wit
ness whot estf4d 10 the adult t'ry, though he
testified 10 Non RAJ. .e's doubtful Conduct
with Mis- Grossi before, placed the dates
Of the two positive acts Of adultery after
the commencement of the suit Geverthe-
less, report vas given IN Lucca's favor,
and sic obtained i decree of divorce June
.. 1873. On June 4, 1873, she married
Emil Won Walihotfen.
The defendant shortly afterward applied
to the court to open the default for tie
alleged irregularities in its conduct.
In this petition lie says that he j. Thirty
:iTe years old that Until the summer of
1872, himself and wife lived together ne on
his par, bang fully aud completed, faithful
to bis marriage. VOWS, and discharging ali
tie iaties and obligations of good Aus-
band. kindly usirg and treating his V if,.
Ger tii She gave him cause 10 think tha:
she Was IN any way diSpirasei or disSatIs-
led until the fall of 1870. Then there
was change Ill Der feelings AMI actions
toward him, and she became fUrgetful ot
her duties rs Il , Ifc and rauthcr from tine
time that one, Emil Non Walhuf.n was
introduced IN his family IN Sep ember 1870
Na.troE+H resnliue,: there altiI AnrI,
1871. being treated there of his WOUNDS
received at the battle Of St. Priyas on the
18th Of ArEnst. Won Rhade was himself
likewise seriously wo1niel in battle Two
days previous. and was not sworn that
" Na!lhoffeT had been taken 70 lis housp
u"til he found hm there, shen the state
of his wounds permitted his removal tc his
home. Won Rhade adds that his wife. ua-
beknown TO him, and against her agree
meut with the Gire tor uf the kUval Opera
IN Berlin here .he was eH.Hg, j, sailed
for the United States. lie fist leuruei
OF the d yorcs through the public Journals,
though he Is mot rr pared ta believe that
such can well be ,he case"
Ms motion was heard before Judge
Fancher, With counter motion hy the
plaintiffs fur amendments Of the record t.
cure the irregularities. Judge Funcher
Es!d tn defects to he merely irr-guiarit e
a: granted an order to amend the record,
bat On The Srnun Inuinlv that the aft iavi;
of NOn Rhaiie jid not plumply derry the
adultery chnrgel refused to vac, ,te tie
judgement, yrt permitted him 10 put in ~,
answer If tie you'd >wear TO IT, From III,
both lItisaGts appealed. each being dissat-
.iied.
Ihe defendant claimed that the court
couli obtain only jurisdiction Of fer
ei-ner ty strict follow wing of the s.atute
and the orders of the curt, end iLat the
smallest deSiatI1n xas not 81 mere irregu-
larity but a iur;siietiGnal defect. and
that IN no case could Il defendant in divorce
/ be compelled to swear To his answer
+ The plaintiff claimed 'bat the statute
had been rot only substantially bu, lilrr-
I ally complied aith. the errors being meTe
errors IN ORDER of verbal charaet er ,which
! could be amended under the p.wers Of tho
. court since the defendant had recsived TO
I harm from ihvrl and hat as Judge F,n-
| cher had held that tie defendants affidavit
! showed merits, bu, was ees5iye, he
7 shocid not have given even qualified
right 10 csme in and hut the divorce in
/ doubt, especially after her remar.iae-
The appeal WAS argue: yesterday before
the Supreme Conrt, General Term hF Mr.
Nash for the plaintiff and cz-Goy. Sol
anon for the defendant, and the court re-
sere,Ted It's iscis,on