Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-09-02
A COMPLICATED DIVORCE SUIT.

The Second of Three Liptng Undiporced
Vices Suing for Support-ProoT at the
First Marriage Not Atloto~d, 1t Hurting
Been Concealed From. the Second Rifc.
(Elmira Special to New York Times
divorce case that has brought up new
and interesting points of law in that class of
practice IN this State, is now pending in the
special term of the supreme court of this
district In 1s4s Timothy Finn was mar
ried in London to Catharine Murphy. In
the spring of 1849 Finn left his wife and
came to this country, settling in Elmira.
In 1850 he married girl named Margaret
Mooney in this city. Nothing was known
of Films first marriage. He was prosper
GUS and accumulated considerable property.
In 1860 the first wife appeared in this CITY.
and exposed her husband. He fed to In
diana. 1t seems that the London wife had
followed Finn to America, and sought a
long time to learn his whereabouts, without
success. Some time before she came to
Elmlra she took up her residence in Boston,
hiring out as a servant in hotel While
there she became acquainted with family
who had lived in Elmira, and who told her
OF the presence there of Timothy Finn.
Of course. she followed him, and when she
appeared before him in this city, he fled the
place, and was finally heard from in Indiana.
HIS vile returned at once to Boston. In
1868 he returned to Elmira. The woman he
had married here had assumed her maiden
name, and refused to live again with Finn.
He engaged IN business here, and in 1873
was again married. This union has en-
Kept up until the present day, and is the only
one of the three marriages that has resulted
in the.birth of children. Finn is the father
of three children by this wife. Margaret
Mooney continued to reside and support her.
self in Elmira, and is highly respectable
woman. In 1876 she commenced a suit
against Finn for Betrayal of his marriage by
taking third wife, and for divorce on that
account, and for aIimony and allowance out
OF his property for her support. Finn made
the defense that he was already married
when he took Miss Mooney to wife, and that
therefore his marriage with her was void,
and her action could hot hold. This point
IS met by the plaintiff with the arguments
that Finn had never disclosed to her the
fact of his first marriage, and that having
thus deceived her into marriage, he cannot
now be allowed to prove the former. The
case was referred to E. F. Babcock, ESQ.,,
two years ago, who reported in favor of the
defendant. Justice Murray refused to con-
tlrm the report, setting it aside on the
ground that the referee erred in permitting
Finn to testify in his own behalf to prove
bis London marriage, and that he could not
prove his own wrong as defense, the plain
tiff being entirely innocent. From this de-
cision Finn appealed to the general term of
this department.. That court affirmed Judge
| Murray's decision. From that court the
case was referred to Judge A. P. Smith, of
Cortland county. He has recently made his
report, which is in favor of the plaintiff, on
the ground that she was deceived into the
the marriage with Finn, gave him the best
10 years of her life, and has gained the right
to support from his property during her de-
Ginning years. The decision on the report is
now pending before the special term. The
first wife has not appeared in any. of the
/ phases of the case.