The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-01-12
HUNTING FOR sIiABKEY.

HUNTING FOR siIARKEY.
| Between nine and ten o'clock on Friday
night, three carriages drove hurredly TO
the Thirteenth street police station and de
posted their occupants, who seemed to de-
sire to escape notice. hastily entering Capt.
McCulloughs ROOM The visitors were
police commissioners Smith and Gardner,
Superintendent AIatscll, Capt. Irving OF the
Central Police office detectives, and several
of his best men. Two sections of police
were in reserve in the rear room. For half
pcrintendent sat discussing something of
the greatest importance. At length Il mes
senger entered out of breath, and having
whispered something to the captain. the
reserve We're sent out, and the commission
crs and superintendent strolled down town
The police crossed to Tenth avenue, and
the commissioners and superintendent
walked down Sixth avenue The party
met at the head of Little Twelfth street
and there the police surrounded block.
Capt. Irving and detectives Farley and
O'Neil rang at the doorbell of a respectable
house, from which they shortly afterward
emerged with evident signs of disappont-
mcnt Then the reserves were called of, ,
and the commissioners and superintendent
went home. All this came Of a story told
to the police by young woman who is
said to have been engaged to be married to
VIM. j. Sharkey, and who had promisnd
to entiCc him into her house that evening
PAULINE LUCCA's DIVORCE.
Maria Pauline Won Rhade better known
to the American public as Pauline Lucca,
was married in 1865. On her visit TO this
country she Instituted II suit of divorce
against her husband, who was still in l3cr-
lin. The summons had Of course to be
served by publication, but there seems to
have been Il number of technical faults.
BY mistake in making up the order of pub
LEGATION, Marine Court summons was at
tachcd requiring the defendant to answer
in six days instead Of twenty as it should
have been. This, however, was corrected
in the actual publication The order di-
rected n copy to he mailed to the defendant
at Berlin, Prussia To insure its reaching
him, the clerk put on the envelope the hus-
bands club. The order .of reference was
obtained a day before the time for Won
Rhade to answer had expired, and last and
! III .. /
fed to the adultery, though he testified to
Won Rhadc's doubtful conduct with Miss
Grossi before, placed the dates Of the two
positive acts of adultery after the com
mcncemcnt of the suit Nevertheless, II
report was given III Luccas favor and she
obtained Il decree of divorce June :, 1878.
On June (, 1873, she married Emil Won
Wallhoffman.
The defendant shortly afterward applied
to the court to open the default for the al
legged irregularities in its conduct.
In his petition he says that he is thirty
five years old that until the summer of
1872 himself and wife lived together, he
on his part being fully and completely
faithful to his marriage VOWS, and dis
a good husband, kindly using and treating
his wife, nor did she give him cause TO
think that she was in any way displcased
or dissatisfied until the fall of 1870. Then
there was change in her feelings and ac-
| tions toward him, and she became forget
full of her duties rs wife and mother
from the time that one Emil Won Wallhof-
fen was introduced into his family in Sep
TENDER, 1870. Wallholien remained there
until April, 1871, being treated there of his
wounds received at the battle of st. Priyat
on the 18th of August. Won Rhade was
himself likewise seriously wounded in bat
tie two days previous, and was not aware
that WallhofTen had been taken to his
house until he found him there, when the
state of his wounds permitted his removal
to his home Won Rhade adds that his
wife, unbeknown to him, and against her
| agreement with the director of the Royal
Opera in Berlin where she was engaged,
sailed for the United States. lie first
learned of the divorce through the public
journals, though he is 'not prepared to be-
| lieye that such can well be the case"
His motion was heard before Judge Fan
cher, with a counter motion by the plain
| tilis for amendments of the record to cure
the irregularities. Judge Fanchcr held the
defects TO be merely irregularities, and
| granted an order to amend the record, but
on the ground mainly that the affidavit of
Won Rhadc did not plumply deny the adul-
| terry charged, refused to vacate the juGg-
mcnt, vet permitted him TO put in an an
| swer if he would swear to it.
From this both litigants appealed, each
being dissatisfied.
The defendant claimed that the court
could obtain only jurisdiction of a foreign
| er by strict following of the statute and
the orders Of the court, and that the small
lest deviation was not mere irregularity
but jurisdictional defect, and that in no
case could n defendant in divorce be COM
PEELED to swear to his answer.
The plaintiff claimed that the statute had
been not only substantially but literally
complied with, the errors being mere errors
in orders of a verbal character which could
be amended under the powers of the court
since the defendant had received no harm
from them; and that as Judge Fancher
had held that the defendants affidavit
showed no merits, but was cyasiye, he
! should not have giycneyen u qualified right