The New York herald., 1878-02-28
THE KlNzLY DIVORCE.

In the Court Of Common Pleas yesterday, before
Judge j. +. DAILY and Jury, an action was tried TO
make void marriage contract between William
o. Kinney the plaintiff, and Adelaide Kinney, the de-
sndant The iacts In the case have been publlshsd,
more or less IN the repors Of the brought by
The defendant for alimony, aud also IN proceedings
In the Jefferson Market Police Court, IN which the
detendant sought TO compel the plaintiff 10 support
her. Mr. Henry DAILY, Jr., appeared for The pla'ntin
and MT J. d. Townsend Tor the defendant. Mr.. Kin-
zoy 10 tho dry goods merchant at Ninth street and
Broauway.
In the summer Of 1860 Mrs. Kinney, who was then
known MISS Kiene. was introduced to the paint,n
glovo store Of Mr. Isaac Long, glove importer
on Broadway, by Mr. Long. She was then arranging
to 90 into busiufss but ~ plaintiffs solicitation &C.
cepted position In ms store ss superintsndcn aud
entered u,on her duties ~ september, 1860 In De-
cembsr 1870 The painln ssld that defendant told him
that she mad been married 70 . man named Will
lard Idc, AMI that her husband had deserted nor
tor more than nvo years and that sho FREQ
10 marry Kinney because she obtained q divorce
Be,eviug her statement 10 be truo Mr. Kinney says
be married tho defendant on tue 2iss Of February,
1871, and did NOT entertain the slightest suspcion VI
The Incorr:cnsss o. hsr assertion that sfter toe mar
rsxs she frequently Told thai she aid not know
where nsr husband was nor lad she auy means Of
nndng out or ascertaning whether he was iiving or
dead. but that sue oelievsd him 10 be dead On
the l5tn ot August, 1876, Kinney separated from
tho deiendant Ia consequence u naving found by
searching The records the court where she said she
had oopincd divorce. that sne had only obtuincd u
separation irom bed aud Uoard aud tnut this
obnintd until alter his (Kuzcys) marriage. ne also
stated that the defendants hrst husband nv
inE and was known to DO living by tho defendant at
the time she murricd him, and his whereabouts
well knowh 70 her, and tnst therefore her marriage
him (kinzoy) WAS deceit ana fraud.
TESTIMONY IN THE
One OF tho hrst wituesses In yesterday vas
Willard Idc, tue deenosnps nrst husband, whV
- hs marriage with IN 1851 He Ihat hts oc-
cupation was that OF . captain He visited thIs
port once year and called regularly upon his two
cudren, opv vi whom 10 married shu lives ~ Railway,
N J. MRS. ktnxoy his WIFE, knew VI hrs yearly vists
there AMI must therefore have known 0t his exist
encs He pever Knew of any divorce proceedings
against nlm and that he was never served sum-
nous aud complaint 10 any action tor divorcs.
SIR. DaIy thsn called Tor Mrs. kinzsy, but she
DOT IN court. An attachment was issued for her
sue was round sick Ia bod but no application was
made on that ground for postponsmsnI anu tns case
proceeded.
Mr.. 0,is g. Judd said that he knew the plaintiff aud
dsicudant aud that IN 1888 latter went by the
name VI uiss kleipe; ~ 1870 wtaess introducs
deendsnt TO Mr. Edward Mckinley, lawyer; that
Ar. kipzey and that she desired to Commence AN
ton against her husband, Willard Ide, Jr., for a.
vVrcc; enc told him at that that her nusbaud had
separated from hcr that la her resided NJ Rsbw
N. j., und that her husband was mate board
vessel thut ran IN and about the port VI Now York,
ana thut she desired 10 advertise the summons
obscure paper wncro her busDa.d w0did bs likely
gettng divorce. All this said IN the presence
Of witness apd Mr.. Mckinley.
Mr. Kiuzey then took the witness chair and tcsii-
hcd 10 the fucts us Riven above.
Tho jury RETIRED aud returned into court, alter .
short deliberation, win verdict Tor the paintin