The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-01-31
WHO WAS THE GROOM
THE SENSATION or PUTNAM couNrY-MARY
Knox MARRIED, BUT TO WHOM ?-rHE NEE.

THE SENSATION OF PUTNAM couNrY-MARY
Knox MARRIED, BUT TO WHOM ?--rHE MEE.
EirTs or THE CASE.
70 sometimes happens that the widest romance
which tho ingenious author Of fiction weave is
completely ourdone by extraordinary dongs In real
life, aud that the completely OF motive by which its
mimic characters swayed tails far short OF the in.
subtley that guides living actors This propo
siton ample illustration In case which has
for agitatcd Putnam county, New York, and
through which justice essays TO grope Its feeble
way. The case has elements of cerainty-nameIy,
that tho night OF November a marriage ceremony
performed between two persons and that the bride
Is Mas Mary T. Knox. Of Putnam county. For tho
rest all Is allegation, denial, speculation, sur
misc. Suspicion and general confusion. 1t
may seem easy tho question,
sswho did Miss Mary T. Knox marry." but that
rs precisely the question which stirs Putnam county
TO the core which every one would fain have
swered aud YET which nobody can answer; which the
minister who pcrfor ed the marriage ceremony
no, respond to satisfactorily and which Justice Greg
DRY, with impartial zeal, endeavors to determine.
Miss Mary &. Knox has a theory OF her own In tho
matter which she cndeayors TO sustain. with tho aid
of the counsel acting for tho people. Her claim Is
that the she married II Jonn A. Merritt, youth
of twenty two aud about ave years her junior Mer-
r.,t, the other hand. denies that he ever married
tho lady. II. friends suggest that the form
gyman. Rev J. D. Dean who performed
this ceremony thinks that both resemble BRIDE
groom some respects. that mother resembles him
IN other particulars and adds that Ia the afternoon Of
the hrst session OF the court he standing in
the rear OF the room who was more Ike the BRIDE.
groom Than either the other As Sir Lucius
AS /, s,snds. pas !, becomes necessary TO add some
other particulars for tho Information OF tho public.
TnE CEREMONY.
As has been stated, tho marriage ceremony per-
formed ON the night OF NovcmbcrS tho bridc says
that the night n question Merritt came for her
carriage, ia pursuance OF an agreement made ON the
FRIDAY evening preyious that she obtained $50 from
her mother 20 pay the necessary expenses, that
that they there and then married;
that they Immediately drove back; that she
gol out oil the carriage at her fathers house; that
he drove away, anu that she him aierward,
except ms he was driving by. singular feature IN tho
case IS Ma, On sc sI. rrs's s ans nseS MAR
Mr. A. j. Mcr, lawyer concerning tha feasibility OF
procuring divorce In the State OF New York; that he
said he could not prove any misconduct on the ladys
part that he talked about having separation papers
drawn up by mutual agreement, and that IN parting no
sation. Here the suggestion whether, Mcr.
ritz as alleged, married Miss Knox on the
lempiaiing divorce iron. a union which
yet the evening OF the 7th. BE
that II may, tho conversation concerning which
secrecy cnjoned Mr. A. j. Miller reached the
OF his latncr, Mr. John q. Miller, also u lawyer, to
whom the bride had applied tor legal assistance HIS
representation that the night OF tho marriage
Merritt had told Mics Knox OF the onversaton OF tho
preceding evening.
SURPRISED BRIDEGROOM
Another notable feature OF the is that on the
day after the performance OF the marriage ceremony
Merritt shaved of his musIachc, and he himself says
that he 10 The act OF performing this tonsorial
operation when tho father OF Mary Knox camo the
house and informed his people OF the marriage and no
adds that ne was greatly surprised at the soft mpeach
ment THAI he the groom Ii is certain. too, that
he called at Rev. Mr. Deans house that evening" dc.
"A he WAS he W no W a
Knox and tod the clergyman that should give
The certificate OF marriage 10 the bride
FURTHER COMPLICATIONS
So far there seems TO BIO something 10 connect
Merritt with the marriage, but comes In the alega.
lion that Merritt personatcd and that the person
who went through the ceremony really the brother
OF Miss Knox ON this point and indeed, altogether,
the testimony oil the clergyman IS delightfully."- per.
picking and rs rather calculated to render still more
intricate the already complicated texture OF the story
He describes with some minutcncss tue person whom
he married 10 Miss knox, aud adds that there Is quite
considerable difference between the groom and Mr..
John A. Merritt Touching George Knox, the brother
OF the BRIDE no says that there are points that
resemble the bridegroom and points that do not
resemble him, and, 10 whether Knox Merritt most
! question to answer. His best judgment however,
! Is that neither Is the groom Take OF Mcrrt's
chin whiskers and the resemblance would DO greater
There marked difference however, IN their fore
heads Merritt, he says, has rounder face than tho
man he married On the other hand, he thought that
the stranger whom he had observed at the of tho
court room rescmblcd the groom more than any man
he mas seem but yet he does think him altogether
like this mysterious person IN the fact that he had
darker aud heavier musIaehc s'crner expression
and clearer eye
And SO the matter stands until tardy toiling justice
shall have dclvcd through the obscuriiy that sur
rounds the case. Whether IL Is evasion OF his mari
tai duties by Mr. Merritt whether II rs conspiracy
the part OF the knoxcs whether the mysterious
stranger is mixed up Inc affair must be determined
hereafter The eudeavor to solv" tho question, "ro
whom is Mary f. Knox marricdy" viii be resum ed to-
morrow in the Court House OF Putnam county.