The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-08-21
THE COURTS.
Beguiled Into Becoming a
Third Husband.
HEAVY MATRIMONIAL Y0KES.
ASoldier's Widow and the Seventh
Regiment Armory.
p L q IL 7 II NJ q w A C III s
HEAVY MATRIMONIAL YOKE
r LATINO WAC E s..

divorce suit presenting some rather singular com.
pl,cations is that brought by Eugene b. Fairchild
against his wife, Henrietta Fairchild. An annulment
Of tho marriage Is sought the ground that the de-
ndant fraudulently represented 10 the plaintiff be-
lore their marriage that she had legal right 70 DO
some party to such marital contract. whereas AZ he
aow claims she had such right. According to his
story she assumed 10 fully explain her Two previous
marriages her first husband beng William J. Walker,
20 whom she married under The name Of Henrietta
Woodruff AID her second husband, Christopher
q NcCosIey Thus far her story, he says, IS correct
but the rest of her narrative he claims to have been
untrulhiuL Instead oil being divorced from Walker
on account of the Iatlers indslity, he says the
verse the case, and that insteau Of being allowed
In the divorce 70 marry again. she Was proniolted
dates he says that the first marriage
was IN September 1852 that Walker sued for sdvorce
from her May, 1857 aud shortly got his aecree and
ths the prohibition as TO her marry
Ing, she married IN less than year TO McCosksy.
Inc ground Of McCosksy's unfa,thfulness. In
her answer Mrs. Fairchid denies having
and asserting that walker soon after sscur-
Ing u divorce from her, left this State and went 10
Central America where no since died. and that she
had not heard from him for five years previous ner
marriage Fairchild, and then believed that he was
dead. Alter the case had been Tor some time before
Mr. John p. O'NeL as referee, Farchild uscertained
that Walker only not dead 5ut had never been
out OF New Hampshire, whero his marriage TO Henri
eta mad taken place. commission was issued to
lake his tesllmony on the return Of which Mr. waeh
ner Mrs. Fairchiid's counsel nastensd to move Tor
almony and counsel lee. The application was heard
yesterday by Judge Van Brunt. in Supreme Court,
Chambers who reserved his decision, but minated
that ho would counsel leo but not alimony. Mr..
Charles ". Brooke, counsel for Mr. Fairchild said -
sAy the SUIT Is not Tor divorce the marriage having
been from the beginning, II IL not even case IN
which a counsel fee should be gwen"
at IS the unfortunate condition OF any man who
mnrrics woman that wants to get rid OF that he
must pay her counsel" said Judge Van Brunt. and
he asked the counsel 10 up their papers
Another the list Of divorce cases IN the Supreme
which came before Judge Van Brunt IN the Supreme
Court, Chambers, yesterday, on motion 10 discharge
the defendant from Imprisonment Tho plaintiff ~ his
petition states that III 1915 the defendant obtained an
order awarding her $75 counsel lee which was paid,
ana IN 1876 got order Tor SIS more and IS
additional alimony per week He says he was not
able to pay this amount, and was arrested. He
Hales further that his wife Is u vicious woman,
thai she has been imprisoned for assault and
that been dllaory In prosecuting her action.
The wife, in opposition, states that her husband has
displayed wonlerul agility IN ovading the service Of
process, and has been seen TO jump through windows
aud dodge around corners in u bewilderiug manner.
She says further that he 10 sporting man and does
not mako less than $4,000 per annum; that she
Is in poor health and needs money Tor her support
U nder the circumstances Judge Van Drunt concluded
Il best TO deny the motion.
Louis Dakin has sued his wife, Mary Dakn, for an
absolute DIVORCE on tho ground OF adultery he says
that they were married September 10, 1873; that I'm
mediateiy after the marriage the defendant left him
and went to live with another man. by whom sh0 has
hud two children There being no appearance by the
defendant reference was ordered by the Court