New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-10
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
PAULINE LUCCAs DIVORCE.

PAULINE LUCAS DlNOkCE.
APPEAL OF BARON Won RHADEN TO THE SUPREME
couRr FOR REVERSAL OF THE DECREE.
A celebrated singer, known to all opera
soers IN Europe and America by her maiden name OF
Pauline Incca, concerned in appeal which was
heard before the Judges Of the courts of tins
city yesterday. Her former husband asked for the re-
versa decree OF divorce which she has obtained since
her arrival in the United States argument of coun
eel on either side heard, and the judges reserved
their decision.
Baron Adophe Won Rhaden married Pauline Lucca 10
Berlin, In 1865. She to this country in 1872 10
1873 she instituted proceedings for divorce from her
husband ground of his adultery and extravaga mt
habits order of the Court directed service OF sum-
mems the defendant by publication in New-York
papers and by mail 10 him in Berlin The person who
fulfilled the latter order directed the envelope contain
ing the summons the Union Club, Berlin that being
supposed 10 be the defendants club. and the place
where he was most likely to receive It, No
put in Judgment went by default and Judge Fancher
granted divorce and the custody of their only child
was the plaintiff and the defendant was for
hidden TO marry within this state. The decree was
granted June 2. 1873 Seven days afterward plainuh
married Emil Walhofen.
shortly after this marriage petition for relief was
filed by Baron Won RhOden. He stated in his affidavit
that the acts Of adultery charged could not have been
proved that the order OF the Court not carried out
ito mail the letter Berin that by the addition OF the
word Union Club" the letter rendered likely never
reach him. he not being visitor there; that the sum
made out answerable within six days instead
days; that the sent TO the referee one day
before the time for the expired that the mar
rage in Berlin and the plaintiff had no domclie IN
Eew-York; and that the Court had no jurisdiction
especially the statute as to giving houce
was not followed. The case came before
Judge Fancher motion on the l2th OF
August last TO vacate the judgment on tho ground
of irregularities in the obtaining of the divorce Baron
Won Rhaden also put in plea that he and his vic hVeo
happily together until Won Wahoten, who YVES w9uhCed
about the same time himself during the Franco
Prussian war. came 10 his home. motion was nlade
at time by the plantns counsel 20 amend any
defects record. Judge fancher held the errors to
De trivial aud ordered them to be amendeu ne refused
the Judgment or pass any order concerning
the second marriage chiefly because The defendant III
his answer did not plainly and positively deny ms
adultery. Judge Fancher allowed him. however, 90 days
parties dissatisfied with this ruling The plaintiff
in consequence Of the second marriage which followed
Judgment of the Court thought no favor should De eN
tended to the defendant which might tend 10 reopen the
judgment The defendant was dissatisfied WITH being
required TO swear 20 the answer. The defendant az
pe;ed 10 Open the default, and the palnun Appealed
from the order allowing the amended answer. $780,,
appeal up for argument before the General
Term of the Supreme Court yesterday. Ii was argued
nv defendant counsel that manifest wrong had been
done Won Rhaden in consequence ms not having been
served with the summons ans proper resaencs IN Der
mont was gwen without jurisdiction, without notice TO
him. and Insufficient testimony. The COUNSEL com
wife 10 marry again. lie SAID that ;he testimony was
oil gwen 10y detective named kessler who testified be
fore the referee that he saw defendant ana
one Adelheid GrOssi, welEkn0wn Berhn
actress drive ont together; tlat they
were frequently in each others company and that de-
PENDANT was supported by the actress. ana made no
secret OF relations her. KesseT had also deposed
10 watching them, and noticing very suspicious faini-
artie which lie described. The counsel sAld tat these
circumstances, facts the only ones on which the de
cree could be given sworn To as having taken
place after the beginning OF the suit against defend
ant.
The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the second
husband innocent parry, VINO dcteI on the gOod
faith of n decree OF the supreme Court, and that II
would had system Of law # every man about getting
married should be cOmpeledtO employ lawyers TO as
certain whether tie marriage would be valid The
second marriage, he agded, should not for thnG lr-
recuIaritIes amended by Judge Fancher be lmperied
Oy allowing the defendant TO come IN ana answer. tie
remained Berlin, never coming mere 10 look diter
hIs wife, and never made his appearance until the
woman was married again
TIE Court inquired there was any testimony show
ing that there letcrcaIrier system III Bclhn slid
liar 10 that New-Gork Counsel answered there was
mono IN Berlin. Tne Court reserved is decision. Coun-
Scl for the appellant solomon ana buIhe; lOr inc It-
epOudent Nash and Aub.