The New York herald., 1876-11-26
DIVORCED UNDER DIFFICULTIES.

Some rather curious and interesting facts were
vcloped yesterday on motion made before Judge
Sanford in tho Superior Court, for substitution OF
attorney in the suit brought by Madeline A. Strickland
against her husband. George W. Strickland. Several
pdayits were submitted the motion. The plaintiff
In her affidavit states that the action Is brought 10
procure divorce from the defendant that ehc s in
!ormed and believes that a decree has been signed IN
,aid action, granting divorce to her the ground Of
iefendants adultery, but that such decree has not
ret been entered in the judgment book. She goes
70 state that sho FIRST became acquainted with
lbe defendant in April, 1873, at No 223 Scher-
nerhorn street, Brooklyn, where she was board
Ing with her mother and sister, and where hr:
Strickland was also boarding Alter about two months
Acquaintance he asked her 10 marry aim which sue
refused. Dir. strickland represented himself 10 DO
vidower Her mcther and herself leit brooklyn and
engaged board Tor tho summer Fordhsm, aud had
been there only week when NJ siricNsand pat 10 an
appearance and engaged board az me same mouse,
ven he renewed hts entrcai;es Tor her TO marry him.
She huay consented but agreeing, at his earnest so
uciation let her folks know anything about
nn III after the marriage she was married ander the
name OF Madeline A. Larkin. although her legal name
was Madeline A. Parisen. she gave the name OF Lar
KIN because she had formerly gone through the cere-
mony OF marriage with man by the name OF Larkin,
and lived with him until sue discovered lhat ne nao
wife, when she ieit him Al TINS, however, sne eA-
plaincd 10 Mr. Strickland. AT the time Of her
marriage 70 strickland she says she had arge and
valuable wardrobe, quantt, oi jewels anu siseI"he
and burial lot IN Greenwood Cemetery N Wh'ch Was
buried her grandmother soon alter her marriage sue
discovered that Mr. Strickland had pcen divorced from
his former wife, who stl living, and thai he vas
prohbusd from marrying again. The remainder oi
the affidavit which Is very lengthy recites now sue
gave all her property to Mr.. ssrckland 10 heip MN
out OF alleged pocunary embarrassmcnts that sne
sold some OF her clothing Tor the same purpose, ana
6uaiy disposed OF the Greenwood buria lot giving the
money 10 him. alter which the remains OF her grsnd.
mother were removed 10 . grave when he refused
10 give her money enough 10 buy some nowers 70 put
upon such grave that from that time be used vie and
sbnsye language, and that he vowed that he only
married her thinking she was rich and LndIng that
abe was not would lead her dogs life Her affidavit
closes with stating detail how shc was In
dured as she alleges through conspiracy to consent
IN 4 decree OF divorce without ahmony; that sue IS
now in absolute OF the neccssares OF lie, and
sh,t MIR s,r,ckan has threatened that II she pro-
eceied against him tor mcans of support he would
l.ave the country rather than make her any further
mepts nil the money she having received thus FAR
beinu $50 and a cheek Tor $50, which was protested
the LAWYER charged with being implicated In the
alleged conspiracy denies IN the most pointed manner
ANY such conspiracy, or that Ne ever acted coIusion
wiih he defendant TO dciraad the plaintiff. but always
ACTED for her interest and welfare.
The answer OF George W. Strickland, defendant In
he ease states that oil divorce 10 the plaintih
thas been duly granted and Is 70 all other matters