The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-02-20
TOO MUCH MATRIMONY.

A FAIR BUT TICKLE PLAINTIFF LAYS CLAIM TO
THE AFFECTIONS OF LONG SEPARATED HUs-
BAND-cURIoUs MARRIAGE COMPLICATIONS.
A suit for divorce, which presents many novel and
remarkable features up before Justice Gilbert
of the Kings County Supreme Court, yester-
day. motion of plaintiffs counsel for
alimony and counsel fee. The parties TO the
suit which was begun in October. 1878. are
Mary Nolte against Adoph Nolte. They
red in this city in 1858. but Mrs. Nolte secured
separation from her husband after the
ground of cruelty Just previous to the battle of
Bull Rum in 1861 defendant visited his wife. He
dressed in the full uniform of federal officer, and
informed her that he had enlisted and was
going to fight for his country. For six
years after she heard nothing of the
absent one and believing him to be slain. it is said
united in wedlock with man named Angus in
June. 1867 Nine years passed by, and yet tidings
gained of Nolte. Suddenly however. Mrs.
Angus discovered that her first husband was alive
and prospecting in this worlds goods. This in
1876. She at once commenced legal proceed
ings to have her marriage with Angus declared
null and void. and gained verdict III her favor in
1873. Defendants sets forth that in 1858 he
married another woman and had been living with
her up to the present time. The marriage ceremony
between himself and plaintiff he declared to be.in-
valid. Plaintiffs counsel. Mr. Brown. said yesterday
swear that ii valid ceremony. The defendant,
he stated of means and resided in
Rochester Defendants counsel General benjamin
L. Tracy said his client resident of Rochester.
He had resided there for period OF twenty-five
years and was a man of note. He had been married
to woman for twenty-five years aud had had seven
children by her. Four OF them still living.
Mr.. Nolte, General Tracy SAID, had during these
years been publisher OF a German newspaper.
COMPLICATED MARRIAGES.
In 1853 a marriage ceremony had been performed
between the parties to the present suit but plaintiff
and defendant separated afterward and lawyers had
informed defendant that the marriage illegal
one. There had been secrecy ABOUT his second
marriage. Plaintiff lived with Angus before she
ried him. counsel said and she claimed when she did
marry him she not aware her first husband was
living. He would prove, he said that such was not
the case by the following letter. which written
by plaintiff to defendant. General Tracy said one
year previous to her marriage with August
BROOKLYN, n. Y June Is. 1896.
FRIEND NoLrE-Excuse writing you \ few lines.
was here to my friends In New York last week and
they telling am glad to hear you well.
shall DO glad you will call when you in New York
Tney said you were going to Milwaukee 10 see my family
hear Of you but they not in Milwaukee. Their ad
dress is John Yates schlessingvile Post Office Wis
and how like Il. lost my husband since you
last in Brooklyn. Mos, respectgliy,,
This letter written. General Tracy said, while
But who is the husband she mentions in the letter
having lost p asked Justice Gilbert THAT is o
mystery" replied General Tracy. Afhdavits as to
the marriage between plaintiff and defendant having
taken place produced by PLAINTIFF counsel from
her mother brother and Jane Roscher formerly Jane
Dunbar When Justice Gilbert stated that he did not
see how the divorce from Angus had been obtained
General Tracy said, 1.-The same way as many other d.
vorces had been obtained-by false swearing
Justice Gilbert denied the motion. without preju-
dice to q renewal.