The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-03-23
SEQUEL TO THE GUNSER MURDER.

dIsToRruNEs OF THE VICTIMS wIDow-HER
SECOND HUSBAND FRIGHTENED By VISIONS
OF GHOST SUES For DIVORCE, ALLEGING
ADULTERY.
The murder of John Gunser is again brought to
mind by recent disagreement attendant upon the
matrimonial venture OF the victims widow. Yester-
day, in the Supreme Court, Kings county. before
Justice Pratt motion was made by counsel for Henry
Derking who is suing his wife for divorce to strike
out portion of the Of the defendant relating
to his abandonment of her.
The defendant. who is the widow Of John Gunser,
as stated, is buxom German woman OF comey APP
pearance. and is about forty years of age. Guhser
was murdered while In bed with his wife in East
Williamsburg, Queens county. L. l., on the night of
May 10. 1877. He was thrifty German and kept
lager beer saloon. owning his house and other
property
About year and q half after the tragedy Mrs.
Gunser was married to German about wenty-
three years of age named Henry Dierking The
ceremony was performed OH November Is. 1873.
three weeks after Dierking. who is grocer. had
made her acquaintance at the house of Mrs. Mclean.
with whom the widow lived. 1t is claimed by his
friends that he under the impression that Mrs.
Gunser was worth $40 1000 and that he would have
little more to do than to take his comfort and
for rest of his life He did not know ut the time,
II is said OF her former husbands fate The period
usually allotted for the honeymoon was not per-
mtted to pass before lie took his departure abruptly
from his BRIDE This proceeding on his part is said to
have been accelerated by OF certain nocturnal
vsitations while roaming in the realms OF dreamland
On the morning of December l. 1878. thirteen days
s ns III the
that day He returned again. She called on
her motherinlaw. who turned her out and said that
Henry should never live with her again. Two or
three days after his disappearance she received the
following letter in the handwriting of the missing
DECEMBER . 1878
My FR,ksD-I take pom to write YOU few lnes !. !:
have WORK s0 r Sssy sSsn do ys 10
because Ell an long way from there. ean'tv with You
sIa ss ws xa ;
from h.~ s .s sd that & a % my
true; 81 my own faultwhy went away win write
rf short es4s S and .s @ . Is a %
not tell NOV know ss as ,S MS II sa
drove me away will again in your house,
can't live with you Thsrcfors you can DO What you like
should be divorced then that vii sui, This i ths last
my name. You know it. any how, long enough Goodby
THE DIVORCE poocEEDINGs.e
The letter. which is translated from the German
language, is not signed by Dierking.
Shortly after the receipt OF the letter she served
by Messrs Semler and Lowre. counsel for her hus-
ceedings instituted against her. The complaint
alleged that she committed adultery in 1878 with
person unknown to the complainant. and that
on each and every day Of the month Of November Of
the Same year she committed adultery with various
persons; that December II she committed similar
offence with Conrad Freelling and at different times
in that month; also that the offence repeated in
January. 1879. The complaint is sworn to January o.
A few days after tho receipt Of the complaint Mrs.
Dcrking, the defendant, who in her answer alleges
abandonment and asks for limited d-
vorce. sets forth that she requested
to 20 to Union Hill, N. j., by deputy
sheriff where she called with female friend at the
house of Carl p. Schmcrgcn. where she met DER
king There her husband represented to her that it
was necessary for her to sign paper to enable him
to collect some money from his uncle. who liTes in
williamsburg She signed the paper and returned to
her home, after which she informed her COUNSEL
Messrs. Kaugleman and Brosbeck subsequently the
Deputy Sheriff visited the counsel and showed them
the paper in question: which proved to BIO articles of
separation. Counsel who took the paper, said that
as it was obtained under coecion 1t was, therefore,
invalidated. Dierking arrested two weeks ago
for abandonment, and was arraigned before Justice
Marshall, Of Newton, but was discharged on March
II.
On hearing the motion Of counsel yesterday JUS
tice Pratt took the papers and reserved his decision