The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-28
THE WINCHELL DIVORCE.

AN INTERESTING REPORT OF THE REFEREE-A
DECREE ASKED IN FAVOR OF THK PLAINTIFF.
Tho winche divorce case which has been in tipa-
tion nearly eight years, will probably reach tts
termination to-day when the report OF the referee,
John 4. Ward wiz be formally presented for coDfr.
nation in the Superior Court This case has been
very interesting one from the peculiar. intricate and
unexpected changes has taken In tho course OF ti-
CATION.
ABOUT eight years ago Rensselaer, B. wincheii, tho
well known ice man. suspected his wife Ei'za hand
some blonde then scarcely thirty years OF Of in.
fidelity hcr marriage vows Tho parties were mar
red in 1860 aud have had several children In order
TO connrm his suspicious he made sudden trip TO
Albany where he pretended he had to remain several
days important Returning the next train
he that his wife was on very familiar terms
with O hotel keeper who then resided In sixth avenue
Ho attempted ut first 10 take summary vengeance on
the destroyer OF his happiness but the latter was too
fleet OF foot for him and escaped without any injury
except slight scratch from knockdown. Winchel
then commenced divorce proceedings and was in far
way OF accomplishing his object when he called
one evening his little girl and pay an install
ment OF amony to his wife. Alter this visit The an
swcr Of the defendant In the divorce SUIT was i'm.
mediatcly amended BY adding that the plaintiff had
. condoned his WHO'S offence, which he denied. THIS
advice Of her counsel. william H. Schooloy, who
aterward out 10 be the most important cbarac-
the playing the roe OF correspondent ~
was IN reference to the part which ho that
the latest proceedings before tho referee were ins
tuted.
THE NEW CORRESPONDENT
Mr. Schooley took up the case Tor his fair client
time in 1871, and harassed Winchell very much
Tor three four years by his defensive tactics, BAL
fling all his lawyers and forcing him to pay atimony
and counsel fees all this tmc II seemed to Winche
that the case gong TO be ntermlnabte He tried
to shake of his lawyers, and IN IL OF desperation
expressed determination 10 lot the whole thing 20
BY deauit but the gentlemen the Bar be
aha kon of
cllcnt
marriage with Mrs. Winchel, the chief allegations of
tho complaint being repeated acts Of adultery on the
part OF tho defendant with her counsel William H..
Scnooley, different places and different periods Of
time from LIST OF September 1871, 10 the 1st Of
July, 1876 The case was sent to referee, where
ant set up charges Of adultery but according
opinion OF the referee the proof rs not satisac
tory. dgN
The referee says:-By the evidence we arc first in
troduced 70 these parties me deiendan. aud William
II. Schooley, living in tho same house from the 9th
OF June, 1871, to september OF tho Same year. Dur
ing the period of their JOINT residence Al this house
Mr.. Schoolcy and the defendant occupied rooms on
the same floor, which communicated through BATH
room, the at all times having access to tho room
of the other BY the testimony of Mrs. Clute it
pears that during All this period Mr..
Scnooley awaited himself OF his privileges
slant attendant IN the room Of Mrs wincnell. per-
forming tor her when she was i'll duties which hus-
band would not perform u the services OF aiema.e
presenting the appearance Of having been
pied oy two persons both from tho dents In tho
two pillows the bed and from tue bed itself The
defendant produced witnesses TO show that Winchcll
had visited houses OF ill-fame, but he met that
by saying that they ice customers. One
witness, Mary Noe, swore that Winche had broken
the seventh commandment with nor, but she was
shown TO DC q woman OF loose character The referee
did not attach sufficient importance TO tho tcst imony
Of those witnesses 10 condemn Wnchcll, and found
that Mrs. Winchei had boon guilty OF the
charges preferred against herr also that she
had occasion been seen in aGgrdnte
dcLictu by Carrie Steickeman, ana that
therefore divorce should be decreed favor OF the
plaintiff, dissolving SAID marriage for the aduteries
so committed by the defendant; that the plaintiff
should have charge oil his child and that the defend
ant pay tho cost oil the action. Tne report was hled
yesterday in the Superior Court and argument will be
had to-day to It's confirmation by Mr. b. D. Kiiiian
Tor plaintiff and Colonel Charles s. Spencer for de-